Administrative orders must be reasoned to comply with due process and constitutional mandates, failing which they are rendered void and may be challenged in court.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Sri Yashonidhi Shukla learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishi Kumar learned ACSC for the respondents.

2. The instant writ tax is being enetertained by this Court in view of the fact that GST Tribunal is not functional in the State of U.P. Pursuant to the Gazette notification of the Central Government being No. CG-DL-E-14092023-248743 dated 14.9.2023.

3. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 3.2.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector 25, State Tax, Kanpur Nagar by which the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled as well as the order dated 17.7.2023 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the respondent no.2 as barred by limitation as provided under section 107(4) of the UPGST Act (herein after referred to as the Act).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registration of the petitioner has been cancelled without following the provision of section 29 of the Act and has passed the order dated 3.2.2023. He further submits that from a perusal of the order cancelling the registration of the petitioner has been passed mechanically without application of mind and without assigning any reason.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay. He further submits that detailed reason was assigned for filing the appeal beyond limitation but the same was not considered.

6. He further argues that the quasi judicial order which has an adverse effect on the right of the petitioner to run business as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and the same has been taken away without any application of mind which is neither the intent of the Act nor can it be held to be in compliance of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions he has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Writ Tax No. 100 of 2022 ( Om Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. And others) decided on 6.9.2022 and in Writ Tax No. 147 of 2022 (M/s Chandra Sain, Sharda Nagar Lucknow through its proprietor Mr.Chandar Jain v. U.O.I. Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Mnew Delhi and 5 others) decided on 22.9.2022. He further submits that while passing the cancellation order dated 3.2.2023 no reason has been assigned which is against the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Jumbai and others (1998) 8 SCC 1). He prays for allowing the writ petition.

7. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders dated 3.2.2023 and 17.7.2023 and submits that the proceedings have already been initiated against the petitioner and as the petitioner has not filed its return and tax, therefore, the registration of the firm has been cancelled. He further submits that the appeal was preferred by the petitioner beyond the period of limitation as provided under section 107(4) of the Act, therefore the appeal has been rejected. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the Court has perused the record.

9. Admittedly from the perusal of the order dated 3.2.2023 it transpires that no reason has been assigned for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner. The order of cancellation is in the teeth of various judgments of this Court as also referred to above. The reasons are heart and soul of any judicial and administrative or