AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside sub-impugned order of rejection of application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration dtd 30/08/2023 bearing ref no ZD2708233213998 (exhibit-L) issued by respondent No. 3 and to restore the GST registration of the petitioner on the GST portal.; b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or Certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside sub-impugned order of cancellation of registration dtd 02/02/2021 bearing ref no ZD2702210115452 (exhibit-E)issued by respondent No. 3 and to restore the GST registration of the petitioner on the GST portal; c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Maharashtra, from February 2020 onwards. iii. Thereafter, on 31st December 2020, a show-cause notice in Form GST REG-17 was issued to the Petitioner, whereby the Petitioner's GST registration stood suspended, with effect from the said date. The Petitioner was called upon to furnish a reply to the said notice within a period of seven working days from the date of service thereof. iv. On 2nd February 2021, the GST registration of the Petitioner came to be cancelled by Respondent No. 3 with effect from 1st May 2019. It is the Petitioner's contention that the said cancellation was effected without affording any opportunity of personal hearing and is, therefore, in violation of the principles of natural justice. v. Bei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the reply and the documents placed on record by the Petitioner, Respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 30th August 2023 rejecting the Petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration. ix. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal on 19th March 2024 before the Appellate Authority. However, the said appeal came to be rejected on the ground of limitation. 3. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that the Petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of cancellation of GST registration dated 2nd February 2021 as well as the order dated 30th August 2023 rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration, has filed the present Petition. 4. Mr. Shreyas Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... business was found to be non-operational, and that the Petitioner had failed to discharge its tax liability as well as to file returns within the prescribed time. She, therefore, opposed the reliefs sought in the present Petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that there is considerable substance in the contentions urged on behalf of the Petitioner. In the facts of the present case, the cancellation of the Petitioner's registration appears to be arbitrary. The show-cause notices, as well as the orders dated 2nd February 2021 and 30th August 2023 (hereinafter collectively referred to the impugned orders) do not reflect due consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... insofar as the initial decision taken on the refund application was concerned, which has not been adhered in passing the said order dated 13 September, 2019. It is also not the case that the petitioner was sleeping over its rights when the petitioner immediately moved an application dated 31 January, 2020 seeking to rectify the refund application and making a fresh application immediately on 12 February, 2020 which was just a month prior to the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, and on which the deficiency memo dated 27 February, 2020 was issued. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the application of the petitioner for refund ought to have been considered, when the same was sought to be entertained by the Designated Officer. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that such non-speaking orders, passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, are liable to be quashed and set aside. The following decisions are apposite: i. Makersbury India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 (79) G.S.T.L. 341 (Bom). ii. Monit Trading Private Limited vs. Union of India 2023 (76) G.S.T.L 34 (Bom). iii. C.P. Pandey & Co. vs. Commissioner of State Tax (2024) 123 GSTR 84. iv. Ramji Enterprises vs. Commissioner of State Tax 2023 (78) G.S.T.L. 220 (Bom). v. Nirakar Ramchandra Pradhan vs. Union of India 2023 (9) TMI 1176-Bombay High Court. vi. Afzal Hussain Saiyed vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Mumbai Central 2023 (79) G.S.T.L .296 (Bom). 14. For the ....