2024 (9) TMI 438 - HC - GST

Regulatory Action Invalidated: Insufficient Notice Details Render Cancellation Order Void, Procedural Compliance Mandated

Indrajit Roy Versus The Superintendent, Barasat Range IV & Ors.

HC found the show cause notice and registration cancellation order defective due to lack of specific details and reasoning. The court set aside the ... Challenge to the cancellation of registration and rejection of application for revocation of cancellation - denial to petitioner of right to object appropriately in absence of appropriate disclosure - SCN does not identify the name of the issuer and as such the petitioner couldn’t appear and explain its case - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is found that although, a show cause had been issued for cancellation of registration and though the petitioner had been called upon to respond and appear before the “undersigned” as recorded in such notice on 11th August, 2023, such notice only has a digital signature with the mark “validity unknown”. The name of the signing authority is not available. The show cause notice is also vague. No particulars of the fraud and misstatement or suppression have been disclosed. It is found that the petitioner had not responded to the aforesaid notice. No reason has been disclosed for cancellation of registration. The order is absolutely vague and non-speaking - Since, the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice dated 19th December, 2023, the application for revocation of cancellation had been rejected. The order dated 2nd January, 2024 is set aside - the writ petition is disposed of. Issues:Challenge to the cancellation of registration and rejection of application for revocation of cancellation.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the cancellation of registration and rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation in a writ petition. The advocate for the petitioner argued that the show cause notice lacked specific details of fraud or misstatement, denying the petitioner the opportunity to respond adequately. The notice did not identify the signing authority and was vague. The order of cancellation of registration was deemed non-speaking and vague, leading to the petitioner being unable to present its case effectively. On the other hand, the respondent's advocate appeared on behalf of the authorities.Upon hearing both parties, the judge noted that the show cause notice lacked essential details and the petitioner did not respond to it. The order of cancellation of registration did not provide any reasons for the action, rendering it vague and non-speaking. Subsequently, the application for revocation of cancellation was rejected due to the petitioner's failure to reply to a notice. The judge emphasized that when an order with adverse consequences is passed, adequate reasons must be given. As a result of the lack of disclosure in the show cause notice and the absence of reasons for cancellation, the judge set aside the order of cancellation dated 13th September, 2023.The judge directed the respondents to provide the basis for the show cause notice to the petitioner within two weeks. Upon receiving the particulars, the petitioner was granted four weeks to respond. The adjudicating authority was instructed to decide on the show cause notice within eight weeks from the date of the order. During this period, the registration of the petitioner, which had been cancelled, would remain suspended. The order dated 2nd January, 2024, was set aside. If the authorities failed to provide necessary particulars to the petitioner, the jurisdictional authority was directed to activate the portal for the petitioner to fulfill its obligations. Once the petitioner complied with the requirements, the suspension of registration would be withdrawn.With the above directions and observations, the writ petition was disposed of, and parties were granted access to a certified copy of the order upon fulfilling formalities.