TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST Registration under the CGST Act, 2017 was lawful and in accordance with the prescribed statutory procedure.
2. Whether the impugned cancellation order complied with the requirements of a speaking order, including the obligation to assign reasons for cancellation.
3. Whether the petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice and to be heard before cancellation.
4. The effect of delay in approaching the Court for relief against the cancellation order and the balance between procedural irregularity and delay.
Issue 1: Lawfulness and Procedural Compliance in Cancellation of GST Registration
The relevant legal framework comprises Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017, which empowers the Proper Officer to cancel GST registration where a registered person has not furnished returns for a continuous prescribed period, and Rules 21 and 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which prescribe the procedure for cancellation.
Section 29(2)(c) authorizes cancellation if returns have not been furnished for a continuous period of six months. Rule 21(h) specifies that non-filing of returns for six continuous months renders registration liable to cancellation. Rule 22 prescribes the procedure, mandating issuance of a Show Cause Notice (Form GST REG-17), allowing seven working days for reply (Form GST REG-18), and the passing of an order of cancellation or dropping of proceedings in Form GST REG-19 or GST REG-20 respectively.
The Court noted that the Show Cause Notice dated 27.08.2020 was issued, but it failed to specify the exact period or months for which returns were not filed. The petitioner alleged that she did not receive the Show Cause Notice in time due to circumstances beyond her control, including the Covid-19 pandemic, and thus could not file a reply or appear for hearing. The Proper Officer's order dated 09.09.2020 cancelled the registration but did not specify reasons or the period of default.
The Court observed that the impugned order did not comply with the procedural requirements under Rule 22. The absence of specific details in the Show Cause Notice and the failure to assign reasons in the cancellation order undermined the legitimacy of the cancellation process.
Issue 2: Requirement of a Speaking Order and Assignment of Reasons
A speaking order is one that explicitly states the reasons for the decision, reflecting conscious application of mind and adherence to principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that the cancellation of GST registration is a serious action with adverse civil consequences, and therefore the order must be reasoned.
The impugned order was found to be a non-speaking order, as it merely stated that the registration was liable to be cancelled without assigning any substantive reasons. The Court held that even if the petitioner failed to respond or appear, the Proper Officer was still obligated to record reasons for cancellation. The absence of reasons indicated lack of application of mind and rendered the order arbitrary and illegal.
The Court relied on the statutory prescription embedded in Rule 22(3) and the format of Form GST REG-19, which requires the Proper Officer to specify reasons for cancellation, thereby reinforcing the necessity of a speaking order.
Issue 3: Opportunity to be Heard and Consideration of Petitioner's Submissions
The Court examined whether the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice and to be heard. The Show Cause Notice required a reply within seven days and mentioned a personal hearing, but no date or time for such hearing was fixed or communicated.
The petitioner asserted that no reply was submitted and no personal hearing was attended, which was supported by an additional affidavit. The respondent failed to file any counter affidavit disputing these assertions. The Proper Officer's order, however, recorded that a reply dated 05.09.2020 and submissions at a personal hearing were considered, which the Court found to be factually incorrect.
The Court held that the absence of a fixed hearing date and the petitioner's inability to respond due to the Covid-19 situation compounded the procedural irregularities. The petitioner's inability to file an application for revocation or appeal within statutory time limits was noted but was not determinative given the procedural lapses on the part of the authority.
Issue 4: Effect of Delay in Filing the Writ Petition
The petitioner approached the Court nearly four years after the cancellation order. The respondent contended that the writ petition was barred by delay. The Court acknowledged the delay but weighed it against the fundamental procedural irregularity of the cancellation order being non-speaking and passed without application of mind.
The Court concluded that the vulnerability of the impugned order due to procedural defects outweighed the delay, especially considering the serious adverse consequences of cancellation on the petitioner's business and rights.
Conclusions and Directions
The Court set aside and quashed the impugned cancellation order dated 09.09.2020 on the ground that it was a non-speaking order passed without application of mind and not in conformity with the prescribed procedure under the CGST Act and Rules.
The matter was remitted back to the stage of issuance of the Show Cause Notice in Form GST REG-17, thereby restoring the procedural status quo ante.
The Court observed that under the proviso to Rule 22(4), if the petitioner is willing to furnish all pending returns and pay due taxes with interest and late fees, the Proper Officer is mandated to drop the cancellation proceedings and pass an order in Form GST REG-20.
The petitioner was granted a period of one month from the date of the judgment to avail either of the two options: (a) submit a reply to the Show Cause Notice showing cause against cancellation, or (b) furnish all pending returns and make full payment of dues including interest and late fees.
The Proper Officer was directed to provide the petitioner with details of outstanding dues upon request within the said period and thereafter proceed expeditiously to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within one month.
The Court declined to impose any costs.
Significant holdings and core principles established:
"An adjudicating authority exercising statutory power of cancelling registration under the CGST Act must record reasons for its decision, unless such obligation is expressly or impliedly dispensed with. It is implicit in the principles of natural justice and fair play that an adjudicating authority should record reasons as it is part of fair procedure, more particularly, when the decision is likely to affect the right of the person concerned."
"The absence of reasons in the decision falls short of the prescription and would be in violation of the prescription and thus, illegal."
"The fact that the petitioner-assessee did not submit any Reply to the Show Cause Notice or did not appear before the Proper Officer for personal hearing, with no date & time appointed by him, does not absolve the Proper Officer from the obligation of passing a speaking order as any order which brings adverse consequence to a person cannot be a mere paper formality."
"The vulnerability of the order of cancellation of registration due to non-compliance with statutory prescription of recording reasons far outweighs the delayed approach of the petitioner in seeking judicial remedy."
The Court's final determination was that the impugned cancellation order was illegal and liable to be quashed, and the matter must proceed afresh in accordance with the statutory procedure, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard and a reasoned order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
