Back
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, MANISH KUMAR
Surendra Bahadur Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Rishi Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.01.2023 whereby the registration of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the appellate order dated 01.07.2023 whereby the appeal was dismissed as being beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a proprietorship concern engaged in civil contractual works and was registered under the GST Act. It appears that as the GST returns was not filed by the counsel, a show-cause notice dated 03.11.2022 was served. In the said show-cause notice, the reasons as prescribed were as under:
Quasi-judicial orders must include reasoning; lack of justification for cancellation of registration violates principles of natural justice and the Constitution.
The importance of providing detailed reasons for cancellation of registration and the need for compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Orders lacking reasoning do not meet constitutional scrutiny under Article 14, allowing for judicial review and the right to respond to show cause notices.
The serious illness of a Managing Director can justify delays in responding to regulatory notices, warranting restoration of GST registration.
The court held that cancellation of GST registration without proper notice or reasoning violates principles of natural justice, resulting in quashing the cancellation order.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
