The main legal point established in the judgment is the imperative nature of providing detailed reasons and ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings, particularly in cases involving the cancellation of GST registration.

ORDER :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. This Court, on 19.01.2023, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while issuing the notice for final disposal, passed the following :

“1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to challenge the action of the respondent no.2 in cancelling the GST registration raising the ground of gross violation of principles of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings with the following prayers:

“14(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, in the nature of Writ, thereby calling for the records maintained by the Respondent No.2 and after going into the validity and legality of the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure-B), and consequent exparte Order dated 24.06.2022, cancelling the Registration; 24DGDPS7158MIZR, (Annexure-D), passed by the Respondent No.2, be pleased to quash and set aside the same; (b) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, in the nature of Writ, directing the Respondent No.2 to produce all files, papers and proceedings in connection with the aforesaid actions initiated by them and after going through the same, be pleased to quash and/or set aside the non-speaking Show Cause Notice dated 09.05.2022, (Annexure-B) and consequent ex-parte Order dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure D) passed by the Respondent No.2;

(c) To pass such order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. We have heard the learned advocate Mr. Modh who has relied upon the decision of Lakkad Brothers And Co. V/s State of Gujarat, in 2022(12)TMI 957 being Special Civil Application No.25205 of 2022.

3. Notice for final disposal returnable on 3.2.2023. Let reply be filed on before the returnable date with a copy in advance by 24 hours to the other side.”

2. Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appeared on instructions and has, on specific query raised, fairly submitted that the notice continues to remain cryptic. However, she has urged that since the order passed is in detail, alternative remedy shall made be available to the petitioner.

3. We have heard Mr. Hardik Modh, learned advocate for the petitioner.

4. We could see that the cryptic show cause notice for cancellation of registration was issued on 09.05.2002. It says thus:

“In case, Registration has been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. Your are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the notice within seven working days from the date of service of this notice.”

5. Order of cancellation, according to the respondents, has come on some other grounds. Noticing the hollowness, the following paragraphs of the base decision of this Court in the case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works vs. State of Gujarat, [2022] 137 taxmann.com 332 (Gujarat) are reproduced as under:

“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 Co operative Group Hou