Regulatory Registration Cancellation Invalidated: Procedural Fairness Demands Proper Hearing and Substantive Reasoning

HC found the registration cancellation order invalid due to lack of proper hearing and reasoning. The court quashed the existing orders, suspended the registration, and directed the Assessing Officer to issue a detailed show cause notice. The petitioner was granted opportunity to respond, and authorities were instructed to pass a reasoned order after personal hearing within specified timelines, ensuring principles of natural justice were followed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of cancellation of registration on grounds of lack of opportunity of hearing and absence of reasons, violation of principles of natural justice, appeal dismissal on limitation ground, failure to follow court guidelines, suspension of registration pending show cause notice decision.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of cancellation of registration, contending that no opportunity of hearing was provided, and the order lacked reasons for cancellation. The Appellate Authority upheld the cancellation order citing limitation. The court referred to a previous case where guidelines were issued to authorities for issuing show cause notices and final orders. Despite the guidelines, the respondent authorities continued to issue cryptic notices and orders for cancellation. The current cancellation order lacked reasons, and the appeal under GST Act was dismissed, precluding revisional power under section 108. Consequently, the court quashed the orders and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer at the show cause notice stage, suspending the petitioner's registration in the interim.

The court directed the Assessing Officer to provide detailed reasons for cancellation within two weeks and to provide a copy upon request. The petitioner was required to file a written reply within two weeks of receiving the reasons. Subsequently, the respondent authorities were to pass an appropriate order after a personal hearing and considering the reply within four weeks of the hearing. Both parties were instructed to adhere to the timeline for efficient disposal of the show cause notice. The court emphasized that it had not delved into the merits of the case and instructed the respondent authorities to pass an order in accordance with the law, ensuring detailed reasons and a fair hearing for the petitioner.

Consequently, 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 specified directions. The court concluded by stating that it had not examined the merits of the case and discharged the notice without imposing any costs.

---