Sree Ugcl Projects Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by following a previous judgment of the same court in a similar case (W.P.No.18308 of 2024, dated October 16, 2024). The court directed the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancellation of registration on or before August 13, 2025. Additionally, the petitioner was required to file draft returns and deposit all taxes due by the same date. The Assistant Commissioner, as the Registering Authority, was directed to receive the tax payment before considering the revocation application. The Assistant Commissioner was then to consider the revocation application and pass orders within 15 days of its receipt. If the plea was accepted, the registration would be restored, and the petitioner would need to file all pending returns. The court also permitted manual filing of the application if online filing presented difficulties. No order as to costs was made. Any pending interlocutory applications were closed.

Facts

The petitioner, Sree UGCL Projects Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Visakhapatnam-II, on August 9, 2023. The petitioner contended that the order was bald, cryptic, issued without sufficient reasons, and with retrospective effect from July 1, 2023. It was also alleged that the order lacked a DIN and the officer's signature, violating principles of natural justice and the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation order and restore its registration. An interim application was also filed seeking suspension of the cancellation order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of cancellation of GST registration, dated August 9, 2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) is arbitrary, bald, cryptic, and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Constitution of India (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was not supported by good and sufficient reasons, lacked a DIN and signature, and was issued with retrospective effect, making it arbitrary and contrary to law. They contended it violated principles of natural justice and constitutional rights. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Assistant Commissioner, State of Andhra Pradesh, Union of India, and CBIC).