JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST / SGST Acts rejecting an appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P3 order canceling the registration of the petitioner under Section 29 of the CGST / SGST Acts. The appeal was rejected on the ground of delay.

31348/2022

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contentions taken by him in W.P (C) No.29807/2022.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that there is no dispute that the petitioner failed to file returns for the specified period and therefore there is no illegality whatsoever in the order of cancellation. It is submitted that the procedure contemplated by law was followed before completing the proceedings against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner did not apply for revocation within the time specified in Section 30 and also did not file any appeal within the time.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents, I am of the view that this writ petition is liable to be allowed. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner in this case is produced as Ext.P2. A perusal of Ext.P2 shows that the same has been issued in Form GST Reg 31, which is the form for issuing a notice regarding suspension of registration. Further, the reasons stipulated in Ext.P2 for proposing cancellation of registration is as follows:

“Whereas on the basis of information which has come to my notice, it appears that your registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reasons:

Returns furnished by you under Section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Observations Failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months.

You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the notice within thirty days from the date of service of notice.”

The notice is absolutely vague and it is not clearly specified with any clarity, the reasons for proposing cancellation even the period for which there was alleged failure to file returns is not specified. I have in my judgment in W.P (C)

No.28783/2022 held as follows.

“5. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader and Adv.Alfred, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The reasons which compel me to take such a view are the following: -

(i) Ext.P5 show cause notice issued to the petitioner has been issued in Form GST REG-31. That form is to be issued in relation to proceedings for suspension of registration and is issued with reference to Rule 21A of the CGST/SGST Rules. It is clear that Form GST REG-31 is one relatable to proceedings for suspension of registration and cannot be treated as a show cause notice under Rule 21 of the CGST Rules, which requires the issuance of a notice in form GST REG-17. Ext.P5 does not even contain all the details contemplated by the form appended to the Rules. A reading of Ext.P5 suggests that the Officer issued the notice in form GST REG- 31 by omitting specific details from the form and by treating it as a notice for cancellation. It is a principle at the heart of administrative law that where the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone. In Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC

422, it was held:-

“31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1875) 1 Ch D 426 : 45 LJCh 373] which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [(1936)

63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253] who stated as under:

“[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.”

32. This