IMPORTANT POINT
The court dismissed the writ petition for lack of diligence and abuse of process, emphasizing the importance of filing replies to show cause notices to uphold principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri S. Suri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shreyas Reddy, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.04.2023 for cancellation of the petitioner’s registration of the GST, as also the order dated 16.06.2023 by which the petitioner’s application for revocation of the cancellation order was also rejected.

3. Against the order of cancellation the remedy of appeal is also provided under the statute. However, we entertained the writ petition in view of the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that there was violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner filed the reply dated 02.04.2023 to the show cause notice dated 02.03.2023 issued to the petitioner but the same was not considered while passing the impugned order dated 03.04.2023. A specific averment to that effect was made in Para 3 of the affidavit in support of the writ petition.

4. The impugned order also mentioned that the petitioner filed the reply dated 02.04.2023 in the very first sentence, though in the later part it was mentioned that the reply was not filed.

5. On 05.12.2023, the following order was passed:-

“The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 03.04.2023. Previously, show-cause notice dated 02.03.2023 was issued stating the reasons for the proposed order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed reply on 02.04.2023 but the same has not been considered while passing the order dated 03.04.2023.

3. The order of cancellation in the first sentence mentioned about the reply dated 02.04.2023 but in next sentence it is mentioned that the petitioner did not file any reply.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that an application for revocation of cancellation was filed which has also been rejected vide order dated 16.06.2023.

5. Learned Government Pleader shall obtain instructions with respect to the original order of cancellation on the aspect as noted above.

6. Post on 12.12.2023.”

6. On another date i.e. on 09.01.2024 based on the instructions, it was submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petitioner did not file any reply against the show cause notice. On that date also, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on Para 3 of the affidavit in support of the writ petition that, the petitioner filed the reply dated 02.04.2023, but the same was not considered.

7. As the impugned order in the later part said that the reply was not filed, the Court passed the order dated 09.01.2024, inter alia, directing the learned Government Pleader to produce the original record.

8. The petitioner was also directed to file additional affidavit bringing on record the copy of the petitioner’s reply dated 02.04.2023 in support of the averment made in Para 3 of the affidavit, which was not annexed with the writ petition.

9. The order dated 09.01.2024 is reproduced as under:-

“The challenge in this petition is to the order of cancellation of the registration passed by respondent No.1 in Form GST REG-19 vide Ref.No.ZA3704230022335 dated 03.04.2023 of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner’s reply dated 02.04.2023 in respect to the show-cause notice dated 02.03.2023 was not considered.

2. In the order of cancellation, it is mentioned that no reply to the show cause notice was submitted though in the first sentence the date of reply was mentioned as 02.04.2023.

3. Sri A.V.Badra Naga Seshayya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents based on the written statement received from the Assistant Commissioner (ST) FAC, Nellore-II circle, submits that the show cause notice was issued on 02.03.2023. Subsequently, opportunity for personal hearing was given to the petitioner to appear on or before 30.03.2023 but the petitioner did not