CGST cancellation and revocation orders must give particulars and reasons; non-speaking rejection is liable to be quashed.

Cancellation notices under the CGST framework must disclose the precise default period or month so the registered person can meet the allegation effectively; a notice and cancellation order lacking such particulars do not satisfy fair hearing requirements. An order rejecting revocation of cancellation must also record reasons in writing under the Act and Rules; a terse rejection that does not address the merits or the stated dues is non-speaking and arbitrary. The proper course is to set aside the defective rejection, restore the matter to the revocation stage, and require fresh particulars and a reasoned decision after affording an opportunity to respond.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cancellation notice and cancellation order, which did not specify the relevant default period, afforded an effective opportunity to the registered person; (ii) Whether the order rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation was vitiated for want of reasons and thus liable to be set aside.

Issue (i): Whether the cancellation notice and cancellation order, which did not specify the relevant default period, afforded an effective opportunity to the registered person.

Analysis: The cancellation power under Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the prescribed procedure under the CGST Rules require the noticee to be informed of the precise case against him. Where the show cause notice and the cancellation order do not disclose the month or period of alleged non-furnishing of returns, the noticee cannot meaningfully meet the allegation. Mere reference to liability to cancellation, without particulars of the default, is insufficient to satisfy the requirement of fair hearing.

Conclusion: The cancellation notice and the cancellation order were found deficient for want of particulars, thereby undermining effective opportunity of response.

Issue (ii): Whether the order rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation was vitiated for want of reasons and thus liable to be set aside.

Analysis: Under Section 30(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 23(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the proper officer must record reasons in writing while either revoking or rejecting revocation. The impugned rejection merely stated that the applicant had not replied within time and did not address the merits or the dues referred to in the notice. Since recording of reasons is an essential safeguard against arbitrariness and a statutory requirement, the order could not stand as a reasoned decision.

Conclusion: The rejection order was held to be non-speaking and illegal, and it was set aside and quashed.

Final Conclusion: The matter was restored to the stage of the revocation notice, with directions to furnish particulars of the alleged dues and to pass a fresh reasoned order after giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond.

Ratio Decidendi: When the statute requires reasons to be recorded and the noticee is entitled to meet a specific allegation, an order passed without disclosing the basis of the alleged default or without a reasoned determination is arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

---