Reasoned GST cancellation orders are mandatory; failure to follow prescribed procedure can invalidate cancellation despite delay in challenge.

Cancellation of GST registration under the CGST Rules requires notice, consideration of the reply, and a reasoned speaking order in the prescribed form; a generic order without specific reasons and without compliance with Rule 22 is unsustainable because cancellation carries adverse civil consequences. The cancellation was therefore quashed and the matter restored to the stage of show cause notice for fresh action in accordance with law. Delay in approaching the Court did not defeat relief, as the fundamental defect lay in the absence of reasons and breach of mandatory procedure, which outweighed the lapse of time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order cancelling GST registration was vitiated for want of reasons and non-compliance with the prescribed procedure; (ii) whether delay in approaching the Court disentitled relief.

Issue (i): Whether the order cancelling GST registration was vitiated for want of reasons and non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Analysis: Cancellation of GST registration under the CGST framework must follow the procedure contemplated in Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, including a notice, consideration of reply, and a reasoned order in the prescribed form. The order under challenge merely referred to the show cause notice and recorded a generic ground without assigning specific reasons for cancellation. Since cancellation of registration has adverse civil consequences, the authority was obliged to pass a speaking order showing conscious application of mind. The absence of reasons also showed non-conformity with the prescribed cancellation form and procedure.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was invalid and liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether delay in approaching the Court disentitled relief.

Analysis: Although the writ petition was filed after a substantial lapse of time, the underlying cancellation order suffered from a fundamental statutory defect in not recording reasons. The vulnerability arising from breach of the mandatory requirement to pass a speaking order outweighed the delay in approaching the Court.

Conclusion: Delay did not bar relief and did not prevent interference in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned cancellation of GST registration was quashed, and the matter was restored to the stage of show cause notice for fresh action in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where cancellation of GST registration has serious civil consequences, the proper officer must pass a reasoned and speaking order in compliance with the prescribed statutory procedure; failure to do so renders the cancellation unsustainable notwithstanding delay in challenge.

---