Surendra Kumar Proprietor M/S Palak Enterprises vs. Superintendent CGST Sector 5 Jaunpur

Facts

The petitioner, Surendra Kumar, proprietor of M/s Palak Enterprises, challenged an order dated 12.03.2023 passed by the Superintendent CGST Sector 5 Jaunpur, which cancelled his GST registration. The petitioner contended that a show cause notice was issued on 14.01.2023, but due to unfamiliarity with the portal, he could not respond. He further argued that the cancellation order was passed without providing an opportunity for a hearing. The revenue supported the impugned order. The High Court noted that the cancellation order itself contained contradictory statements, indicating that a reply dated 14.02.2023 was filed and examined, yet simultaneously stating that registration was cancelled due to 'no response received'.

Held

The High Court held that the order dated 12.03.2023, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, was passed without proper application of mind. The Court observed a clear contradiction within the order itself: it stated that a reply dated 14.02.2023 was filed and examined, yet also cited 'no response received' as the reason for cancellation. This inconsistency demonstrated a failure by the issuing authority to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances. Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the impugned order without delving into other aspects of the matter. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a response to the show cause notice within 15 days. Upon receipt of the response, the respondent was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter expeditiously.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, dated 12.03.2023, is vitiated by non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the opportunity of hearing, as contemplated under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing. He claimed he could not respond to the show cause notice due to his unfamiliarity with the portal. The order itself contained contradictory statements regarding the receipt and examination of a reply, indicating a lack of application of mind. Respondent's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel supported the impugned order, implying that the cancellation was justified.