M/S Super Enterprises vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the ex-parte order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice, specifically Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, which mandates an opportunity of hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated. The Court noted that the date of hearing was fixed as an empty formality. The Court also found that the petitioner had subsequently filed all pending returns and paid all dues, including late fees and penalties, demonstrating their bonafide intention to comply. Citing the precedent in M/s Galaxy Heights, the Court acknowledged that permanent cancellation of registration can severely impact a petitioner's livelihood. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate order and granted the petitioner liberty to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order within three weeks. The competent authority was directed to consider this application on its merits, without rejecting it solely on grounds of limitation, and pass an appropriate order within two months of filing.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Super Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 21.07.2025 by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Muzaffarpur, which dismissed their appeal solely on grounds of limitation. The petitioner also challenged an ex-parte order dated 22.04.2024 by the Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Muzaffarpur, cancelling their GST registration without providing an opportunity of hearing or assigning cogent reasons. The petitioner admitted to not filing returns for six months due to illness and incapacity. The petitioner subsequently filed pending returns and paid all dues, late fees, and penalties. The appeal to the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) was filed on 16.06.2025, challenging the cancellation order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order dated 22.04.2024, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, by failing to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing? 2. Whether the appellate order dated 21.07.2025, dismissing the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation, was justified, considering the petitioner's subsequent compliance and the circumstances leading to the delay? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the show cause notice (SCN) date for filing a reply was fixed before the hearing date, making the hearing an empty formality. They also argued that their consultant's failure to inform them about the SCN led to non-compliance. The petitioner highlighted that they have since filed all pending returns and paid all dues, demonstrating bonafide. They relied on the case of M/s Galaxy Heights Vs. The Union of India and Others (CWJC No. 4204 of 2025) to argue that permanent cancellation of registration inflicts civil death. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner was not prompt in filing returns and had previously been served SCNs for cancellation which were dropped. They asserted that adequate opportunity was given and the petitioner cannot blame their consultant. They further submitted that the appeal was filed belatedly, justifying the Appellate Authority's decision to dismiss it on limitation.