M/S Bajrajg Enterprises vs. Commissioner CGST Service Tax And Central Excise Finance Ministry Revenue Dept And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bajrajg Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging two orders. The first order, dated 08.02.2022, cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The second order, dated 14.10.2022, rejected the petitioner's appeal against the cancellation order on the grounds of delay. The petitioner argued that the order cancelling registration was a non-speaking order. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in the case of M/s Chandra Sain, Sarda Nagar, Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor v. U.O.I & Ors. (Writ Tax No.147 of 2022) decided on 22.09.2022.

Held

The Court found that the order dated 08.02.2022, which cancelled the petitioner's GST registration, was patently non-speaking. Following its own previous decision in M/s Chandra Sain, Sarda Nagar, Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor v. U.O.I & Ors., the Court held that a non-speaking order is legally unsustainable. Consequently, both the order of cancellation dated 08.02.2022 and the appellate order dated 14.10.2022, which rejected the appeal on grounds of delay, were set aside. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The ratio decidendi is that orders cancelling GST registration must be speaking orders, providing reasons for the cancellation, and appeals against such orders should be considered on merits after due process.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 08.02.2022 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration is a non-speaking order, and if so, what is its legal consequence? The petitioner argued that the order cancelling registration was non-speaking and therefore invalid, relying on the precedent set in M/s Chandra Sain. The respondent revenue authorities did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.