M/S Ganga Steel Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Held

The Court noted that the respondents had admitted in their counter affidavit that the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of registration was pending. The Court observed that more than ten months had passed without a decision on the petitioner's application, despite the petitioner having filed a reply to a show cause notice and made further representations. The Court found this delay to be unacceptable. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the concerned respondent to decide the pending applications of the petitioner for revocation of the order cancelling the registration. This decision was to be made in accordance with the law, by a reasoned and speaking order, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and preferably within four weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ganga Steel Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging orders and notices related to the cancellation of its GST registration. An initial order cancelling registration was passed on March 13, 2020. Subsequently, another show cause notice for cancellation was issued on September 22, 2021, followed by a second cancellation order on the same date. The petitioner's application for revocation of this cancellation was rejected by a non-speaking order on October 7, 2021. The petitioner filed another revocation application on October 29, 2021, leading to a show cause notice dated November 10, 2021. The petitioner replied to this notice on November 17, 2021, and also made a representation on December 17, 2021. Despite these submissions and the passage of over ten months, the respondents had not decided the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have failed to decide the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration within a reasonable time, as required by law? 2. Whether the impugned orders and notices are liable to be quashed due to the delay and lack of reasoned decision-making by the authorities? The petitioner argued that the respondents have unduly delayed the decision on its revocation application, despite multiple submissions and representations. It contended that the continued delay and the issuance of further notices without deciding the pending revocation application are arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner sought a direction for the authorities to decide its pending applications expeditiously and to refrain from taking coercive action. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, admitted that the issue of revocation of cancellation of registration was pending for decision. They did not present any arguments against the petitioner's claim of delay but acknowledged the pending status of the application.