TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 969
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (PER: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner in the present case is seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) The Appellate Authority issued APL-02 dated 20.06.2025 (as contained in Annexure-P5A) without passing any order in violation of Sec 107(11) & (12) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017 by Respondent No-5 without grant of adequate opportunity of being heard in violation of Principles of Natural Justice be quashed. (ii) The Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of GST Registration dated 08.07.2024 (as contained in Annexure-P1) issued by the Respondent No.-3 for Cancellation of GST Registration without providing proper opportunity of personal hearing be qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Petitioner is otherwise found entitled to in accordance with law." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered firm under the GST Act, 2017. It is working as a works contractor and is a regular taxpayer having his principal place of business at Tara Sales, Mohalla- Brahampura, Police Station-Mithanpura, District-Muzaffarpur. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was served with a show cause notice dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure-P/1) alleging non-furnishing of return for a continuous period of six months. He was directed to furnish reply before the competent authority within 30 days from the date of service of the notice. It is submitted that the show cause notice itself was defective as even bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 2017 for setting aside the order dated 08.08.2024 but the appeal has been rejected on the ground of being barred by limitation. Submission is that once the rectification application of the petitioner was filed and it was well within the condonable period, the competent authority was required to consider the same on its own merit. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in M/s Kirti Engineering and Traders Vs. Union of India in DB Civil Writ Petition No.4586 of 2023; judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) passed in W.P. No.11833 of 2022 dated 16.02.2023 (Rohit Enterprises Vs. Commissioner, Aurangabad and others) as also the judgment of this Court in CWJC No.12793 of 2022....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t case, it is found that in this case the show cause notice (Annexure-P1) was issued on 08.07.2024. The 30 days period for filing response to the said notice would expire on 07.08.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in saying that even before the expiry of the date for filing the written submissions/show cause the date of personal hearing was fixed. We have noticed that on the very next day i.e. 08.08.2024 the impugned order (Annexure-P2) has been passed. This seems to be an act done in haste. Giving an opportunity of hearing is one thing but giving appropriate/adequate opportunity of hearing is another thing. The competent authority seems to have acted in haste while passing the impugned order (Annexure-P2) on the very next....