2025 (10) TMI 1032

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of real estate. He submits that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.04.2023 for cancellation of registration on account of failure to furnish the returns for a continuous period of six months and thereafter vide ex- parte order dated 16.05.2023, the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that previous returns have not been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order in appeal before respondent no. 2, which has been dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 31.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same itself is in violation of principles of natural justice. Further the petitioner was also not afforded any opportunity of being personally heard. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. The record shows that the quasi judicial order which has an adverse effect on the right of the petitioner to run business as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the same has been done without any application of mind which is neither the intent of the Act nor can it be held to be in compliance of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that his appeal has not been ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f registration order has been passed without application of mind as no reason has been assigned in the impugned order dated 08.08.2023. However, the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that if no reason has been given for cancelling the registration, doctrine of merger will not apply and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondents in the case at hand, are of no aid to them. 20. The present case is similar to one Surendra Bahadaur Singh (supra), Namo Narayan Singh (supra) & Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma (supra); wherein the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 107 of the GST Act. After considering the original order, set aside the same being without any reason and allowed th....