https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414761 A revocation application under the Uttar Pradesh GST regime could not be rejected without compliance with the mandatory hearing requirement in the proviso to Section 30(2) and Rule 23. The show cause notice did not specify the time to reply or the date and time of personal hearing, and that defect remained unanswered. Because a meaningful opportunity of hearing was a statutory precondition to rejection, the rejection order was unsustainable. The appellate order also failed to examine compliance with the proviso and was liable to be set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 09 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Mar 2025 10:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414761 A revocation application under the Uttar Pradesh GST regime could not be rejected without compliance with the mandatory hearing requirement in the proviso to Section 30(2) and Rule 23. The show cause notice did not specify the time to reply or the date and time of personal hearing, and that defect remained unanswered. Because a meaningful opportunity of hearing was a statutory precondition to rejection, the rejection order was unsustainable. The appellate order also failed to examine compliance with the proviso and was liable to be set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law. Case-Laws GST Tue, 09 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414761