JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.

2. The GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 14.03.2023. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority dated 18.08.2023.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2023 and the order dated 18.08.2023 and has assailed the same in this writ petition.

4. The impugned order dated 14.03.2023 makes a cryptic finding to the effect that no reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner. The order thereafter cancels the GST registration of the petitioner without assigning any reason.

5. The order of cancellation of GST registration dated 14.03.2023 visits the petitioner with severe penal consequences. Even if the finding that no reply to the show cause notice was submitted is taken on its face value, the authority has to adhere its obligations in law to apply its mind to the facts of this case and render a speaking order. Failure to submit the reply to the show cause notice does not free the authority from its duty to apply its mind independently