ORDER :

Sonia Gokani, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to challenge the action of the respondent authority essentially on two counts firstly, because the order of cancellation of registration is in breach of principle of natural justice being very cryptic and non-reasoned order and secondly, the appellate authority on the ground of its not having powers to condone the delay has chosen not to decide the matter on merit.

2. The prayers sought for are as follow :

“A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition;

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this petition;

C. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside order bearing No.498 Dispatch No.3977/78 dtd. 22.09.2022 (Annexure ‘D’ hereinabove) being passed by the respondent No.1 herein;

D. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside the order bearing Reference No.ZA240322119279Q dtd.25.03.2022 (Annexure ‘C’ hereinabove) being passed by the respondent No.2 herein;

E. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Respondent NO.2 to revoke GST registration of petitioner bearing No.24AACCK2846B2ZZ;

F. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/(s) that may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the Petitioner.”

3. The petitioner company engaged in the business of civil construction work is registered with the Goods and Service Tax Department and was holding the GST Registration No.24AACCK2846B2ZZ which was cancelled by issuance of show cause notice dated 29.11.2021 and the order impugned is dated 25.03.2022.

4. The appeal was preferred before the respondent No.2 which came to be rejected on the ground of the same having been filed after 75 days. The time limit for condonation of delay beyond 30 days, the appellate authority had shown its inability to condone the same and hence this petition.

5. The statutory appeal is provided before the GST Tribunal, which so far has not been constituted. In absence of any efficacious remedy, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. On advanced notice, the learned AGP, Ms. Pooja Ashar has appeared. She has pointed out to this Court that in absence of any reasonable ground, the delay cannot be condoned and even if, that be the case the statutory limit provides for the delay be condoned by the appellate authority for the period of 30 days which is way beyond the stipulated time period and hence, there is no error in the order of the appellate authority.

7. Having heard the learned advocate, Mr. D.K. Trivedi for the petitioner and learned AGP, Ms. Ashar for respondent, in our opinion, the matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works vs. State of Gujarat, reported in [2022] 137 Taxmann.com 332 (Gujarat).

8. In the decision of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works (supra) this Court after considering the scheme of Act as well as the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act for cancellation of registration has held as under :

“10. Thus, upon appreciation of the scheme of Act, where specific forms have been prescribed at each stage right from registration, cancellation and revocation of cancellation of registration, the same are to be strictly adhered too. At the same time, it is equally important that the Proper Officer empowered under the said Act adheres to the principles of natural justice.

11. At the outset, we notice that it is settled legal position of law that reasons are heart and soul of the order and non communication of same itself amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in miscarriage of justice. This Court is bound by the said judgments hereinafter referred to. The necessit