M/S Brijbhan Singh Thru. Proprietor Brijbhan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Commercial Tax Lko. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the order dated 15.03.2019 (analogous to the impugned order dated 22.12.2020 in the present case) in the cited judgment was liable to be set aside because it lacked any reasons whatsoever. The Court emphasized that administrative or quasi-judicial authorities must provide reasons, however brief, for their orders, especially those with harsh consequences. The absence of reasoning renders the order arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the order dated 15.03.2019 was set aside, with a direction to the petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice, and for the respondent to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing. Although the appellate order was not interfered with on its own merits, it was also set aside as a consequence of the original order being quashed. Applying this ratio to the present case, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 22.12.2020 and the appellate order dated 11.11.2025. The petitioner was directed to file a response to the show cause notice before Respondent No. 3, who was directed to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with expedition. The petitioner was granted liberty to place reliance on any documents in support of their defense. The issue regarding the appellate order's validity in light of the delay was implicitly addressed by setting it aside along with the original order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Brijbhan Singh Thru. Proprietor Brijbhan Singh, filed a writ petition challenging two orders: an order dated 11.11.2025 passed by Opposite Party No. 2 and an order dated 22.12.2020 passed by Opposite Party No. 3. The petitioner also sought to revoke their GST registration certificate (GSTIN/UIN 09AYGPS2546B1ZF). The petitioner argued that their case was identical to a previous case, Writ Tax No. 100 of 2022 (Om Prakash Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided by the same High Court on 06.09.2022. The State Counsel fairly conceded that the present case was indeed covered by the aforementioned judgment. The impugned orders were passed by the revenue authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically the absence of a proper show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing, and for lack of reasoning, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the appellate order dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred, despite the petitioner's submission of medical emergencies and the death of their authorized representative, is liable to be set aside, as argued by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The order of cancellation was passed without a show cause notice and without providing an opportunity of hearing, violating Section 29 of the CGST Act and the principles of natural justice. The order lacked application of mind and reasoning, making it arbitrary. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period due to severe medical emergencies affecting the petitioner and their family, and the death of their authorized representative who held all case-related documents. The power to condone delay under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act should have been exercised. The appellate order, though prima facie sustainable, should be reviewed in light of the flawed original order. Revenue's Arguments: The petitioner did not file a reply to the show cause notice and did not attend the hearing, indicating compliance with natural justice by the authority. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, justifying its dismissal.