A cancellation order lacking reasoning and proper application of mind violates procedural fairness and natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

Om Narayan Rai, J.

1. This writ petition assails an order dated December 9, 2024 passed by the Superintendent, Range-4, CGST, whereby the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled by invoking the provisions of Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017 (in short ‘said Act of 2017’).

2. The facts of the case in brief are that a notice to show cause dated March 14, 2024 was issued to the petitioner calling upon it to explain as to why its registration should not be cancelled. The petitioner replied thereto but despite such reply, the CGST authorities did not conclude the proceedings.

3. Feeling aggrieved thereby and assailing the said notice to show-cause, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WPA 26343 of 2024. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated October 29, 2024 thereby directing the respondent authorities “to dispose of the matter in accordance with law upon giving effective hearing to the petitioner either in person or through its lawyer within a period of thirty days from the date of communication” of the said order.

4. Upon the said order being passed, the respondents-CGST Authorities called the petitioner for hearing, but the matter still remained pending as no order was passed.

5. The petitioner then approached this Court for the second time by filing CPAN 61 of 2025 complaining of an act of contempt of the order dated October 29, 2024 passed in WPA 26347 of 2024 on the part of the relevant CGST authority.

6. CPAN 61 of 2015 was disposed of by this Court by directing the respondent-Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise to communicate the outcome of the hearing in writing to the petitioner within seven days from the date of the order.

7. Upon such order being passed, the order impugned dated December 9, 2024 has been communicated to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

8. Mr. Bhaumik, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, invites the attention of this Court to the notice to show-cause dated March 14, 2024 (Annexure-‘P3’ at page 39 of the writ petition) and submits that the said notice is bereft of any material that could give the petitioner any inkling of what the petitioner is required to answer and is sans DIN. It is also pointed out that the said notice has also not been digitally signed.

9. Mr. Bhaumik further submits that despite several anomalies and irregularities being there in the notice to show-cause, the petitioner replied to the same. It is submitted that despite such reply, the proceeding was not concluded by the CGST Authorities for which the petitioner had to approach this Court by filing the earlier writ petition and then in contempt proceeding.

10. Inviting the attention of this Court to the hearing notice dated November 22, 2024 (Annexure- ‘P10’ at page 88 of the writ petition), it is submitted by Mr. Bhaumik that the said notice was given to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner, Burrabazar Division, CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate in compliance with the order passed in WPA 26343 of 2024 however despite direction of this Court on the said authority to conclude the proceeding and to communicate the outcome thereof, the order impugned has been passed by the Superintendent.

11. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the CGST Authorities, submits that the order impugned has been passed upon taking into consideration the communication of the Assistant Commissioner, Anti-Evasion CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commission (appearing at pages 105 to 108 of the writ petition), wherefrom it would appear that the petitioner was involved in fraudulent