GST registration cancellation and delay condonation require proof of service, reasoned ex parte orders, and consideration of pleaded grounds.

GST registration cancellation requires the authority to show proper service of the show cause notice and record the material demonstrating the date, manner, and mode of service; where the order is passed ex parte without such particulars or adequate reasons, the cancellation is vulnerable. In delay condonation, the appellate authority must examine the specific grounds pleaded in the memorandum of appeal, including any asserted lack of knowledge of the adverse order, and cannot reject the appeal by addressing a different explanation. The text also notes that, where these defects occur, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after notice and hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the cancellation of GST registration could be sustained when the show cause notice and the order in original did not disclose proper service and the order was passed ex parte without adequate reasons; (ii) whether the appellate authority was required to consider the specific grounds urged for condonation of delay and could reject the appeal without dealing with them.

Issue (i): whether the cancellation of GST registration could be sustained when the show cause notice and the order in original did not disclose proper service and the order was passed ex parte without adequate reasons.

Analysis: The cancellation order proceeded on the basis that no reply had been filed, but it did not indicate the date, manner, or mode of service of the show cause notice. In a matter affecting registration, the authority was expected to record material showing due service and the opportunity granted. The absence of such particulars, coupled with the ex parte nature of the cancellation order, rendered the original order unsustainable.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was held unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): whether the appellate authority was required to consider the specific grounds urged for condonation of delay and could reject the appeal without dealing with them.

Analysis: The memorandum of appeal contained a specific explanation for delay, including the asserted lack of knowledge of the cancellation order. The appellate authority instead focused on a different explanation and rejected the appeal as beyond the condonable period without dealing with the actual grounds pleaded. A request for condonation must be examined on the grounds specifically raised.

Conclusion: The appellate order was held unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: Both impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after response to the show cause notice and hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An order cancelling registration cannot be sustained where due service of notice is not shown and the order is ex parte without proper material; similarly, an appellate authority must adjudicate the actual grounds pleaded for condonation of delay before rejecting an appeal.

---