JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Shri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.12.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner, order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 rejecting the petitioner's revocation application for cancellation of the registration as well as the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the respondent no. 1 confirming the rejection of the revocation application of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was a proprietorship firm. The petitioner claimed to have filed its returns on time and also deposited due taxes. A survey was conducted at the business place of the petitioner on 27.09.2019 and in the said survey, the business place of the firm was not found as disclosed in the registration certificate. Thereafter, the registration of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 01.12.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a revocation application on 28.01.2021, which was rejected vide order dated 19.03.2021. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2022. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders have been passed in contravention of the provisions of the Act & Rules as opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner. He further submits that on filing the revocation application on 28.01.2021, the order was passed on 19.03.2021 and surprisingly, a notice in Form GST REG - 23 dated 26.04.2021 was received. He further submits that once an order has already been passed in the month of March without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the notice issued on 26.04.2021 to show cause as to why rejection of application for revocation of cancellation of registration be not passed, could not be issued. He further submits that the cancellation of registration also suffers from illegality as none of the conditions mentioned in section 29(2) of the UP GST Act are complied with. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgements of this Court in M/s Shyam Sundar Sita Ram Traders v. State of U.P. & 2 Others (Writ Tax No. 991/2021, decided on 20.03.2023), Apparent Marketing Private Limited v. State of U.P. & 3 Others (Writ Tax No. 348/2021 decided 05.03.2022), M/s Chandra Sain v. Union of India & Others (Writ Tax No. 147/2022, decided on 22.09.2022) and Drs. Wood Products v. State of U.P. & Others (Writ C No. 21692/2021, decided on 05.08.2022). He prays for allowing the present writ petition.

5. Rebutting the said submissions, learned Standing Counsel submits that the orders have been passed in accordance with law. He further submits that the petitioner, at the time of inspection, was not found and the firm is treated to be a bogus firm and therefore, the impugned orders have legally been passed. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Admittedly, the registration of the petitioner was cancelled on the basis of the survey dated 27.09.2019 with the report that the disclosed business place of the firm was not found and therefore, the firm is bogus. On the said basis, the registration was cancelled on 01.12.2020. The petitioner moved application for revocation of cancellation of the registration on 28.01.2021, but the same was rejected. Thereafter, on 26.04.2021, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the revocation of cancellation of registration may not be rejected