High Court upholds GST registration cancellation after petitioner failed to respond to show cause notice

The AP HC dismissed a writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation. The court held there was no violation of natural justice as petitioner received show cause notice but failed to respond. Regarding limitation, the court clarified that while refund claims have specific time limits per SC precedent in Godrej Sara Lee, writ petitions don't have a fixed three-year limitation, though courts must consider unexplained delays. The court found no hearing requirement for suspension orders passed during pending cancellation proceedings, as no legal provision mandated such opportunity before suspension.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Retrospective effect of the impugned order.
3. Opportunity of hearing before suspension.
4. Proper issuance and signing of the order.
5. Delay and laches in filing the writ petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of principles of natural justice:
The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as it was given retrospective effect and the petitioner's registration was suspended without any opportunity of hearing. The court noted that a show cause notice dated 01.04.2023 was issued to the petitioner, and the petitioner did not submit any reply. The order of cancellation referenced a reply dated 18.04.2023 from the petitioner, but it was noted that no reply was actually filed. Consequently, the court found no violation of principles of natural justice since the petitioner was served with the show cause notice and failed to respond.

2. Retrospective effect of the impugned order:
The petitioner claimed that the impugned order was given retrospective effect. However, the court decided not to entertain this argument due to the laches in filing the writ petition. The court emphasized that the petitioner approached the court almost one year after the impugned order, which was not considered a reasonable time.

3. Opportunity of hearing before suspension:
The petitioner contended that there was no opportunity of hearing before the suspension of registration. The court clarified that the suspension was a part of the ongoing proceedings for cancellation, and no legal provision was cited that required an opportunity of hearing before suspension. Therefore, the court concluded that an opportunity of hearing was not necessary before the suspension.

4. Proper issuance and signing of the order:
The petitioner argued that the order was not issued in the proper GST Form and was not signed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The court noted that the impugned order was digitally signed, dismissing the argument that the order was not signed.

5. Delay and laches in filing the writ petition:
The court extensively discussed the issue of delay and laches. The petitioner approached the court almost one year after the impugned order. The court referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in "State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri" and "Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley," which emphasize that unexplained delay and laches can be grounds for dismissing a writ petition. The court concluded that the petitioner did not approach within a reasonable time and failed to explain the delay. Consequently, the court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition on the grounds of laches.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed due to unexplained delay and laches. The court found no violation of principles of natural justice, no requirement for an opportunity of hearing before suspension, and confirmed that the impugned order was digitally signed. The retrospective effect argument was not considered due to the laches. No orders as to costs were made, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

---