2025 (3) TMI 819 - HC - GST

Registration cancellation quashed for violating natural justice principles despite non-filing returns for six months

Aadesh Enterprise Through Garva Chirag Dineshkumar Versus The State Of Gujarat & Ors.

Gujarat HC quashed the cancellation of petitioner's registration for non-filing of returns for 6 months, finding violation of natural justice principles. ... Cancellation of Petitioner’s registration due to failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of 6 months - Petitioner submitted that the reasons are cryptic, if not lacking and the petitioner’s case on merits has not been considered at all - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Neither the contention of the petitioners that all the dues have been paid has been considered by the authorities which cancelled the registration, nor the cogent grounds on delay, namely, the medical issues, are taken into consideration. In Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Vs. State of Gujarat [2022 (4) TMI 864 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], this Court had held that 'The procedural aspects should be looked into by the authority concerned very scrupulously and deligently. Why unnecessarily give any dealer a chance to make a complaint before this Court when it could have been easily avoided by the department.' The impugned order dated 14.11.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer at the show cause notice stage to enable the respondent-authorities to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after conducting a fresh adjudication, by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and giving detailed reasons thereafter. The same may be done within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include:Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's registration due to the alleged failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months was justified.Whether the orders passed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 violated the principles of natural justice.Whether the appellate authority's rejection of the appeal on the grounds of delay was appropriate, considering the petitioner's claim of medical issues causing the delay.Whether the procedural requirements for cancellation of registration under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, were adhered to by the authorities.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Justification for Cancellation of RegistrationRelevant legal framework and precedents: The cancellation of registration is governed by Section 39 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The precedent case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Vs. State of Gujarat was referenced, which emphasizes the need for authorities to provide reasons and evidence for cancellation.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the order for cancellation of registration was based solely on the petitioner's failure to appear for a personal hearing and the alleged failure to furnish returns, without providing detailed reasons or evidence.Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the cancellation order merely reiterated the reason stated in the show cause notice, without addressing the petitioner's claim that all dues had been paid.Application of law to facts: The Court applied the legal principles from Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing, finding that the cancellation order lacked the necessary detail and transparency required by law.Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's argument that the appeal was rejected due to delay was acknowledged, but the Court focused on the lack of substantive reasoning in the cancellation order.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the cancellation of registration was procedurally flawed and lacked sufficient reasoning.Issue 2: Violation of Principles of Natural JusticeRelevant legal framework and precedents: The principles of natural justice require that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case and that decisions be made transparently and with reason.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the orders passed by the authorities did not consider the petitioner's submissions or provide detailed reasons, thus violating the principles of natural justice.Key evidence and findings: The Court highlighted that the petitioner's contentions regarding the payment of dues and medical issues causing delay were not considered.Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principles of natural justice, emphasizing the need for authorities to consider all relevant submissions and provide detailed reasons for their decisions.Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's position that the matter was crystallized by the appellate order was countered by the Court's focus on procedural fairness and transparency.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the orders were in violation of natural justice principles due to lack of consideration of the petitioner's submissions and absence of detailed reasoning.Issue 3: Appropriateness of Rejection of Appeal due to DelayRelevant legal framework and precedents: The rejection of appeals due to delay is subject to the discretion of the appellate authority, which must consider any reasonable grounds for delay.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the appellate authority did not adequately consider the petitioner's explanation for the delay, which was attributed to medical issues.Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the petitioner's explanation for the delay was not addressed in the appellate order.Application of law to facts: The Court emphasized the need for the appellate authority to consider reasonable explanations for delay, particularly when supported by evidence.Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's argument that the appeal was rightly rejected due to delay was not supported by the Court, which focused on the need for a fair consideration of the petitioner's explanation.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the rejection of the appeal on grounds of delay was inappropriate without considering the petitioner's explanation.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'The impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the order of cancellation of registration are required to be quashed and set aside.'Core principles established: Authorities must provide detailed reasons and consider all relevant submissions when cancelling registration. Procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice principles are paramount.Final determinations on each issue: The Court quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing that the petitioner be given an opportunity to be heard and that detailed reasons be provided. The registration remains suspended until the show cause notice is adjudicated.