Technosun INDIA PVT. LTD. Lucknow Thru. Its Director Amit Kumar Gautam vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Prin. Commissioner, Central G.S.T., Lko. U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the order dated 03.01.2022, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, was a non-speaking order passed without application of mind, and therefore, did not meet the standards of scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court followed its previous judgment in M/S Chandrasen, Sarda Nagar, Lucknow vs Union of India and others, which established that such orders are unsustainable. Consequently, the order dated 03.01.2022 was set aside. The petitioner was permitted to appear before the respondent authority with a reply to the show cause notice and a certified copy of the High Court's order within three weeks. Upon compliance, the respondent was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. The issue of limitation regarding the appeal was implicitly addressed by allowing judicial review of the original order, suggesting that the dismissal of the appeal on limitation did not preclude the High Court from examining the merits of the cancellation order itself.

Facts

The petitioner, Technosun India Pvt. Ltd., challenged the cancellation of its GST registration by an order dated 03.01.2022, passed by the Superintendent, GST. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish returns for six continuous months, as per a show cause notice dated 02.12.2021. The petitioner claims it could not reply to the notice due to the death of its mother from COVID-19 on 05.06.2021. An appeal filed by the petitioner against the cancellation order was dismissed on 02.08.2022, on grounds of limitation, with the Appellate Authority considering the date of the order as the starting point for limitation. The petitioner subsequently filed a writ petition seeking to quash the cancellation order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 03.01.2022 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration is liable to be set aside for being non-speaking and passed without application of mind, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the order dated 03.01.2022 is a non-speaking order, passed without proper application of mind, and thus does not stand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution. They relied on the High Court's judgment in Writ Tax No. 147 of 2022 (M/S Chandrasen, Sarda Nagar, Lucknow vs Union of India and others), which held similar orders to be unsustainable. The petitioner also argued that since the appeal was dismissed on limitation, the doctrine of merger would not apply, entitling them to seek judicial review of the original cancellation order. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the dismissal of the appeal on limitation by the Appellate Authority implies a contention that the petitioner failed to adhere to the prescribed timelines for appeal.