Registration Cancellation Overturned: Procedural Flaws Expose Lack of Due Process in Administrative Action Against Taxpayer

HC allowed petition challenging registration cancellation. The court found procedural irregularities in the order, including lack of hearing and reasons. Impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to issue a detailed show cause notice. Petitioner's registration remains suspended pending resolution of the notice, with specific timelines mandated for both parties to complete the process.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of cancellation of registration on grounds of lack of hearing and reason provision, violation of principles of natural justice, appeal dismissal on limitation ground, failure to follow court directions on issuing notices, suspension of registration pending show cause notice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of cancellation of registration, citing lack of opportunity for a hearing and absence of reasons for the cancellation. The Appellate Authority upheld the cancellation order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the limitation period. The petitioner highlighted the importance of providing a fair hearing and reasons for cancellation, as per the guidelines laid down in a previous case by the Coordinate Bench of the Court. Despite these directions, the respondent authorities continued to issue cryptic notices and orders for cancellation, deviating from the prescribed procedure.

The Court noted that the cancellation order lacked reasons and the appeal under the GST Act was also dismissed. As a result, the respondent authorities were precluded from exercising revisional power under section 108 of the GST Act. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer at the show cause notice stage. The registration of the petitioner was to remain suspended until the show cause notice was resolved, subject to specific directions.

The Court directed the Assessing Officer to provide detailed reasons for the cancellation within two weeks and allow the petitioner to respond within the same period. After receiving the reply, the respondent authorities were instructed to pass an appropriate order within four weeks, following a personal hearing and considering the petitioner's response. Both parties were required to adhere to the specified timeline for the resolution of the show cause notice.

In conclusion, the petition was partly allowed by quashing the impugned orders and remanding the matter for further proceedings. The registration of the petitioner would remain suspended until the show cause notice was resolved as per the outlined directions. The Court emphasized that it had not delved into the merits of the case, and the respondent authorities were tasked with issuing an appropriate order in compliance with the law, ensuring a fair process with detailed reasons and a hearing for the petitioner. The petition was disposed of without any costs being awarded.

---