<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (5) TMI 383 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770111</link>
    <description>The HC quashed the GST registration cancellation order dated 09.09.2020 for being a non-speaking order that violated natural justice principles. Despite the petitioner&#039;s failure to respond to the show cause notice or appear for hearing, the court held that the proper officer was obligated to pass a speaking order with recorded reasons as prescribed in FORM GST REG-19. The court found the order was passed without application of mind and failed to meet statutory requirements. Although the petition was filed after four years delay, the court prioritized the vulnerability of the improper cancellation order over the delayed approach, allowing the petition and granting one month for the petitioner to avail permissible options.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 May 2025 09:58:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=819693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 383 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770111</link>
      <description>The HC quashed the GST registration cancellation order dated 09.09.2020 for being a non-speaking order that violated natural justice principles. Despite the petitioner&#039;s failure to respond to the show cause notice or appear for hearing, the court held that the proper officer was obligated to pass a speaking order with recorded reasons as prescribed in FORM GST REG-19. The court found the order was passed without application of mind and failed to meet statutory requirements. Although the petition was filed after four years delay, the court prioritized the vulnerability of the improper cancellation order over the delayed approach, allowing the petition and granting one month for the petitioner to avail permissible options.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>