Administrative actions affecting business registrations must align with statutory procedures and provide due process, including valid reasoning for cancellations under GST law.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Sri R.R. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nitin Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishi Kumar, learned ACSC for the respondents.

2. The instant Writ Tax is being entertained by this Court in view of the fact that G.S.T. Tribunal is not functional in the State of Uttar Pradesh pursuant to the Gazette notification of the Central Government bearing number CG-DL-E-14092023-248743 dated 14.09.2023.

3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by Assistant Commissioner Sector-14 Commercial Tax, Agra cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner under Section 29 (2) of U.P.G.S.T. Act. On appeal, the appellate authority by impugned order dated 1.12.2022 confirmed the order of cancellation of the registration of the petitioner. Further, a mandamus has been sought for restoration of the registration of the petitioner forthwith with effect from 18.08.2022.

4. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Vidya Devi is the proprietor of the petitioner firm carrying the business of purchase and sale of coal on retail basis for which the GSTIN was granted. Since the petitioner's turn over was below Rs. 50 lacs, it opted for compounding scheme under Section 9(1) of U.P.G.S.T Act as provided under Section 10 of the said Act. On 24.09.2022, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent no.2 to the petitioner proposing to cancel the registration of the petitioner for the reason assigned therein with the direction of the TTZ authority and written direction by JC (SIB) B Agra for cancellation of registration of all coal depot. The petitioner submitted the reply through registered post on 3.10.2022 in response to the notice dated 24.09.2022. Being dissatisfied with the reply of the petitioner, the registration of the petitioner was cancelled vide impugned order dated 14.10.2022 with effect from 18.8.2022. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, but the same has also been rejected by order dated 1.12.2022. Hence the present petition.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not violated any provision of GST Act; more precisely, contained in Section 29 read with Rule 21 of UPGST Act and Rules framed therein. The registration of the petitioner has been cancelled at the behest of direction issued by JC (SIB) B, Agra as well as the direction of TTZ authority, but neither a copy of such direction has been provided at any stage to the petitioner nor the same was annexed along with the copy of notice issued to the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner submitted a detailed reply by sending through registered post on 3.10.2022, which was received on 4.10.2022 in the office of respondent no.2, which fact is mentioned in the impugned order dated 14.10.2022. He further submitted that on perusal of the impugned order of cancellation, no reason whatsoever has been assigned. He further submitted that the first line of impugned order refers to the reply of the petitioner dated 4.10.2022 in response to the show cause notice dated 24.09.2022, but the very next line refers that no reply has been submitted.

6. Further, he submitted that on the date fixed for submitting the reply, the order was not passed, hence, the impugned order cannot sustain. In support of his submission, learned