Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1050
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, D.N. RAY, JJ.
Himanshu Telecom Through Its Partner - Petitioner
Versus
State Tax Officer, Ghatak 40, Vadodara & Anr. - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 2401 of 2025
Decided On : 03-04-2025
For the Petitioner: Parth S. Shah.
For the Respondent: Government Pleader.
The cancellation of registration without providing reasons or an opportunity for hearing violates principles of natural justice, necessitating remand for proper procedure.
Headnote:
(A) Taxation Laws - Principles of Natural Justice - The order of cancellation of registration was challenged on grounds of lack of opportunity for hearing and absence of reasons for cancellation. The court emphasized the necessity of providing detailed reasons and an opportunity for the petitioner to respond before cancellation. (Paras 3, 4, 19)
(B) Procedural Fairness - The court reiterated the importance of adhering to procedural guidelines to prevent unnecessary litigation and ensure fairness in administrative actions. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the cancellation of registration by the Assessing Officer, claiming no opportunity for hearing was provided and no reasons were given for the cancellation.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the cancellation order, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh show-cause notice with detailed reasons and an opportunity for the petitioner to respond.
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to be heard and whether the cancellation order was justified without reasons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cancellation of registration without providing reasons or an opportunity to be heard violated principles of natural justice, necessitating a remand for proper procedure.
Result: Petition partly allowed, cancellation order quashed.
ORDER :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Learned advocate Mr. Parth Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Shrunjal Shah for the respondents.
2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby, the order of cancellation of registration passed by the Assessing Officer has been upheld and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
3. The petitioner challenged the order of cancellation of registration on the ground of not providing an opportunity of hearing as well as such order was passed without assigning any reason for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner.
4. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of M/s.Aggrawal Dyeing & Printing vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2022) 137 Taxmann.com 332 (Guj.) has issued the guidelines to the respondent-authorities as under:
“18. Our final conclusion are as under:
18.1. Until the Department is able to develop and upload an appropriate software in the portal which would enable the Department to feed all the necessary information and material particulars in the show cause notice as well as in the final order of cancellation of registration that may be passed, the authority concerned shall issue an appropriate show cause notice containing all the necessary details and information in a physical form and forward the same to the dealer by RPAD. In the same manner, when it comes to passing the final order, the same shall also be passed in a physical form containing all the necessary information and particulars and shall be forwarded to the dealer by RPAD.
18.2 Over a period of time, we have noticed in many matters that the impugned order cancelling the registration of a dealer travels beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Many times, the dealer is taken by surprise when he gets to read in the order that the authority has relied upon some inspection report or spot visit report etc. If the authority wants to rely upon any particular piece of evidence then it owes a duty to first bring it to the notice of the dealer so that if the dealer has anything to say in that regard, he may do so. Even if the authority wants to rely on any documentary evidence, the dealer should be first put to the notice of such documentary evidence and only thereafter, it may be looked into.
18.3 The aforesaid may appear to be very trivial issues but, it assumes importance in reducing the unnecessary litigation. Our concern is that on account of procedural lapses, the High Court should not be flooded with writ applications. The procedural aspects should be looked into by the authority concerned very scrupulously and deligently. Why unnecessarily give any dealer a chance to make a complaint before this Court when it could have been easily avoided by the department.
19. In the result, all the writ applications deserve to be allowed solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and, accordingly, the writ applications are allowed. We quash and set aside the respective show cause notices of all the writ applications, seeking cancellation of registration as well as the consequential respective impugned orders cancelling registration with liberty to the respondent No. 2 to issue fresh notice with particulars of reasons incorporated with details and thereafter to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ applicants, and to pass appropriate speaking orders on merits. It is needless to mention that it shall be open for the writ applicants to respond to such notices by filing objections / reply with necessary documents, if relied upon. We clarify that we have not gone into merits of the case.”
5. The aforesaid judgement was rendered in the year 2022. However, in spite of the above direction issued by this Court, the respondent-authorities without following such directions are issuing cryptic notice and order for cancellation of registration number of the petitioner.
6. In the present matter, order of cancellation of registration i
