ORDER :

[SONIA GOKANI, J.]

1. Petitioner has preferred this petition seeking to challenge the action of the respondent authority with the following prayers:

“7. In view of the above facts and submissions, the petitioner most respectfully pray as under:

A) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondents by themselves and/or their subordinate officers, to forthwith restore the GST registration bearing No. 24ACUPV1570C1ZF with immediate effect (Annexure-A).

B) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside order having reference No.ZA2409180458252 dated September 28, 2018 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ghathak 17, Ahmedabad.

C) Pending the notice, admissinon and final hearing of this petition, Respondent Authorities be directed to permit Petitioner to file appropriate returns and apportion the amount already deposited by the petitioner through Challan dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure-C).

D) Such other and further order or orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted.”

2. This Court (Coram: J.B.Pardiwala, J., as he then was) has issued notice dated 03.02.2022 for final disposal. Affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No.3 is filed on the ground that he has preferred the appeal after a lapse of long time and particularly after the statutory time period was over. The challenge is to the appealable order. The appeal preferred by the petitioner seeking revocation of registration was also time barred and hence, the respondent authority was right in not acceding to the request.

3. We have heard Mr. Dev Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondents and Ms.Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.2 and 3.

4. Both the sides have not insisted on the issue of limitation to be adjudicated at this stage as group of petitions is also pending for this Court’s consideration. The only ground raised is the cryptic notice, which is of 26.09.2018. Cancellation of registration dated 28.09.2018 is on the ground that there is no reasoning and nothing has been stated. It is decided in one line saying as under:

“The effective date of cancellation of your registration is 01/08/2017”

5. The show cause notice has been submitted and hence the tax effect shown is also zero.

6. This Court in the case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works vs. State of Gujarat, [2022] 137 taxmann.com 332 (Gujarat), held and observed 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 necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came for consideration before the Supreme Court in several cases. Initially, the Supreme Court recognized a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi-judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of the supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [1970] 1 SCR 457. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgments in the cases of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad [2012] 4 SCC 407, Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing