M/S Jitendra Kumar vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jitendra Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 22, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Fatehpur. This order cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The High Court noted that the impugned order provided no reasons for the cancellation. The counsel for the respondent conceded that no reasons were given in the order. The court was informed of these facts through arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel and the respondent's Standing Counsel.

Held

The Court held that the order dated July 22, 2024, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was unsustainable due to the complete absence of reasons. The Court found that the respondent's counsel conceded this fact. Applying the principles of natural justice, which mandate that administrative orders affecting rights must be reasoned, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order. The Court directed the concerned authority to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law. The entire exercise was to be completed within ten weeks from the date of the order. The ratio decidendi is that an order cancelling GST registration without providing reasons violates principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration is valid in the absence of any reasons provided by the issuing authority, as per the principles of natural justice and relevant GST provisions? The petitioner argued that the order cancelling their GST registration was illegal and unsustainable because it lacked any reasons. They contended that a reasoned order is a fundamental requirement for any administrative action that affects a party's rights, especially the cancellation of a business registration. The petitioner relied on the general principles of natural justice, implying that a lack of reasons violates the right to understand the basis of the decision and to challenge it effectively. The respondent, represented by the Standing Counsel, conceded that the impugned order did not contain any reasons for the cancellation of the GST registration. Therefore, the respondent did not present any arguments against the petitioner's contention regarding the absence of reasons.