Reasoned GST cancellation and writ remedy: unconsidered reply and a time-barred appeal did not bar constitutional interference.

Cancellation of GST registration was held unsustainable where the order inconsistently referred to the taxpayer's reply while also stating that no reply was filed, showing non-application of mind and absence of reasons. The order was therefore set aside. Dismissal of the statutory appeal as time-barred did not bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226, because limitation may defeat the appellate remedy but does not extinguish constitutional review where the impugned action affects rights and is unreasoned or arbitrary. The writ petition was maintainable, and the cancellation and appellate orders were quashed with a direction for fresh reconsideration after due consideration of the reply and adequate opportunity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order cancelling GST registration was sustainable when it reflected non-consideration of the taxpayer's reply and lacked reasons. (ii) Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal on limitation precluded exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the order cancelling GST registration was sustainable when it reflected non-consideration of the taxpayer's reply and lacked reasons.

Analysis: The cancellation order referred to the taxpayer's reply but simultaneously recorded that no reply had been submitted. The contents of the reply were not considered. Such inconsistency showed non-application of mind and rendered the order unreasoned.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal on limitation precluded exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Limitation may bar the appellate remedy, but it does not extinguish the constitutional remedy where the impugned order affects valuable rights and suffers from want of reasons.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the limitation dismissal of the appeal did not prevent interference.

Final Conclusion: The impugned cancellation and appellate orders were set aside, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh after due consideration of the petitioner's reply and after granting adequate opportunity before any fresh proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: An order affecting rights must be reasoned and must reflect consideration of the reply on record, and the existence of a time-barred appeal does not bar recourse to writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is arbitrary or unreasoned.

---