Om Prakash Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others

Held

The Court held that while the appellate order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was not to be interfered with prima facie, the order dated 15.03.2019 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was unsustainable. A perusal of the cancellation order revealed no reasons whatsoever were recorded, rendering it not in accordance with law. The Court emphasized that administrative and quasi-judicial authorities must provide reasons, however brief, for their orders. The cancellation order, being without any reason, failed the test of a judicial order and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the order dated 15.03.2019 was set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice before the respondent no.3, who was ordered to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with expedition. In light of the setting aside of the initial cancellation order, the appellate order, though not interfered with on its own merits, was also set aside. The writ petition was allowed in terms of these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Om Prakash Mishra, challenged an order dated 15.03.2019, which cancelled his firm's GST registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act. He also challenged an appellate order dated 29.03.2022, which dismissed his appeal as time-barred under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was issued without a show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing, and lacked application of mind. He further contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to severe medical emergencies affecting him and his wife, and the death of his authorized representative. The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to reply to the show cause notice and did not attend the hearing, thus complying with natural justice principles, and that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 15.03.2019 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for lack of a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing, and for being devoid of reasons? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017). 2. Whether the appellate order dated 29.03.2022, dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, is sustainable, considering the reasons for the delay cited by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The order cancelling registration was passed without a show cause notice and opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice and Section 29 of the CGST Act. The order lacks reasoning, making it arbitrary and subject to judicial review. The delay in filing the appeal was due to severe medical issues of the petitioner and his wife, and the death of his authorized representative, with medical certificates and death certificate on record. The power to condone delay under Section 107(4) should have been exercised. Respondent'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.