M/S Om Enterprises vs. The Additional Commissioner CGST And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Om Enterprises, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Superintendent, CGST, Range-15, Gautam Buddh Nagar. This order cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner contended that the order lacked reasons. The respondent conceded that no reasons were provided in the impugned order. The High Court was therefore asked to decide on the validity of this order.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 13.02.2024, cancelling the GST registration of M/s Om Enterprises, was liable to be quashed and set aside. The primary reason for this decision was the complete absence of any reasons provided in the order by the issuing authority, the Superintendent, CGST. The Court found this to be a violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent's counsel conceded this fact. Consequently, the Court directed the concerned authority to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner 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. No specific section of the CGST Act or Rules was explicitly named as being violated, but the principle of natural justice was invoked.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner is liable to be quashed and set aside for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement of providing reasons, under the relevant provisions of the CGST Act and Rules. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order cancelling their GST registration was illegal and unsustainable as it failed to provide any reasons for the cancellation, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. They relied on the fact that the impugned order was devoid of any justification. Respondent's Contention: The respondent conceded that no reasons were provided in the impugned order. They did not present any counter-arguments or rely on any specific provisions or precedents to justify the order.