TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Quashes GST Registration Cancellation Orders; Highlights Need for Reasoned Decisions to Protect Constitutional Rights.</h1> <h3>Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma With A Trade Name M/s Dev Paint And Hardware Versus State Of Up And 2 Others</h3> The HC quashed the orders dated March 27, 2023, and March 27, 2024, canceling the petitioner's registration under the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017. The ... Cancellation of registration of petitioner - time limittaion - order for cancellation of registration has been passed without any application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the facts are similar to one in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case [2023 (8) TMI 1262 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein the appeal was barred by time under Section 107 of the Act. However, the Division Bench in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case took into consideration the original order and set aside the same being non-reasoned and allowed the petitioner therein to file reply to the show cause notice. The orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order in original dated March 27, 2023 and the appellate order dated March 27, 2024 are quashed and set aside - petition allowed. Issues:Challenge to the order for cancellation of registration under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on grounds of lack of application of mind, violation of constitutional rights, and absence of reasons in the orders.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the cancellation of registration order dated March 27, 2023, and the appellate order dated March 27, 2024, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that the cancellation order lacked application of mind as evident from contradictory statements regarding the petitioner's reply in the order. Citing a Division Bench judgment, the petitioner contended that the cancellation order adversely affected their right to conduct business under Article 19 of the Constitution and violated the mandate of Article 14. The petitioner highlighted the absence of reasons in the order dated 07.01.2023, emphasizing the importance of reasons in administrative or quasi-judicial orders as per legal precedents.The petitioner further relied on a coordinate Bench judgment stressing the necessity of providing reasons in judicial proceedings. Drawing parallels with a similar case, the petitioner argued that despite the appeal being time-barred, the original non-reasoned order should be set aside, allowing the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice. The Court agreed with the petitioner's arguments, setting aside the orders dated March 27, 2023, and March 27, 2024. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice within three weeks and instructed the adjudicating authority to conduct a fresh hearing and pass a new order.In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, and directed a fresh adjudication process with proper consideration and opportunity for the petitioner. The judgment emphasized the importance of reasons in administrative and quasi-judicial orders, ensuring compliance with constitutional rights and legal principles.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
