A registration cancellation must be substantiated with clear reasoning as per the statutory requirements outlined in the CGST Act.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is doing business of trade of timber logs and is a registered taxpayer under the provisions of CGST/KGST Act. The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P2 order of cancellation of registration under Section 29 (2) (e) of the Act, alleging that the registration was obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement and suppression of facts. According to the respondents, the petitioner does not conduct any business from the declared place of business/place of business not found. The petitioner submitted an application physically, to revoke the order of cancellation, but, the same was not entertained. Later, an online application was submitted, along with an application to condone the delay in submitting an application for revocation of the order of cancellation on 18.09.2025. However, as per Ext.P4, the said application was rejected and this writ petition is submitted challenging the same.

2. I have heard Sri.R. Muraleedharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Arun Ajay Shankar, the learned learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, Ext.P4 order, by which the application submitted by the petitioner to condone the delay in fling the application for revoking the order of cancellation, was rejected, and also the Ext.P2 order of cancellation of registration, are not supported by proper reasons. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, in none of the said orders, apart from mentioning that, the person does not conduct any business from declared place of business/place of business not found, no other further details are mentioned as to materials based on which such findings are entered into. According to him, even though in the application submitted by the petitioner, he explained the circumstances, there is no reference of any of the said grounds, in the order.

4. After carefully going through the contents of Ext.P4, I find merits in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Ext.P4 is an order passed on the application submitted by the petitioner to extend the period of filing the application for revocation of cancellation of registration, but, conspicuously, the said order does not contain any reference to the reasons mentioned by the petitioner. Instead of that, the said application was rejected, discussing the merits of the application submitted by the petitioner for revoking the order of cancellation, that too without any reference to the objections raised by the petitioner, in his application. Thus, on carefully going through the contents of Ext.P4, it can be seen that, the detailed discussion as to the contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to his objections against the cancellation of registration and also the reasons furnished by him for extending the period for submitting the application, is not seen made. Therefore, I do not find that, Ext.P4 is an order, which is passed in tune with the statutory requirements contemplated under CGST Act. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P4, with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the matter, and pass a fresh order, after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard, and also adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioner. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.