Acambis Helpline Mamagement PVT. LTD. Thru. Director Tauqueer Ahmad vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Prin. Commissioner, Central GST Lko. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 03.01.2022, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, was illegal. The Court noted that the order stated the reason for cancellation was the absence of any reply to the show cause notice. However, the Court found that even in such a scenario, the competent authority was obligated to consider the facts of the case and arrive at a conclusion that the facts necessitated the cancellation of registration under Section 39 of the CGST Act. The Court observed that no reasons were provided in the order for cancelling the registration beyond the non-receipt of a reply. Therefore, the order was deemed to be non-speaking and lacking application of mind. The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The petitioner was directed to file its reply to the show cause notice within three weeks from the date of the order. Upon filing the reply along with a certified copy of the order, the respondent was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law.

Facts

The petitioner, Acambis Helpline Management Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 03.01.2022, passed by the Superintendent, Lucknow Sector - 19, cancelling its GST registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish returns for six months, as per a show cause notice dated 02.12.2021. The petitioner claims it could not respond due to its mother's health issues and poor financial condition. An appeal against the cancellation order was dismissed on grounds of limitation. The petitioner filed a writ petition as the GST Tribunal for Uttar Pradesh was not constituted. The impugned order stated that registration was cancelled in the absence of any reply to the show cause notice, with no tax, interest, or penalty payable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration dated 03.01.2022, passed by the Superintendent, Lucknow Sector - 19, is a non-speaking order and thus illegal, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order is non-speaking and lacks application of mind, making it liable to be struck down under Article 14, citing the High Court's judgment in M/S Chandrasen, Sarda Nagar, Lucknow Vs. Union of India. They further contended that the dismissal of their appeal on limitation grounds should not preclude judicial review of the fundamentally flawed cancellation order. Respondent's contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents regarding the nature of the order or its compliance with legal requirements.