M/S Sumiran Construction Lko. Thru. Proprietor Raman Trivedi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the order dated February 15, 2023, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, was passed without assigning any reasons, making it liable to be set aside. The Court found this order to be in the teeth of various judgments of the High Court, including those cited by the petitioner, which emphasize that reasons are the heart and soul of any judicial and administrative order. In the absence of reasons, the order cannot be justified in the eye of law. Consequently, the Court found that the doctrine of merger would not apply as the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. The Court also referred to its previous decisions in M/s Chandra Sain and Om Prakash Mishra, where similar orders lacking reasons were set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice within three weeks, and the Assistant Commissioner was directed to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing and considering the petitioner's defense. The original cancellation order was quashed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sumiran Construction, through its Proprietor Raman Trivedi, filed a writ petition challenging two orders: one dated February 15, 2023, by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, and another dated August 9, 2024, by respondent no. 3 dismissing the petitioner's appeal as barred by limitation under Section 107(4) of the UPGST Act. The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was passed mechanically without application of mind and without assigning reasons, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner also contended that the appeal was dismissed without considering the detailed reasons provided for the delay. The respondent supported the impugned orders, stating that registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns and tax, and the appeal was rejected on grounds of limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, dated February 15, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow, is liable to be set aside for being devoid of reasons and passed without application of mind, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as argued by the petitioner, relying on judgments in Om Prakash Mishra and M/s Chandra Sain? 2. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by respondent no. 3 on August 9, 2024, on the ground of limitation under Section 107(4) of the UPGST Act, is sustainable, given the petitioner's contention that detailed reasons for the delay were provided but not considered, and considering the alleged illegality of the original cancellation order, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was passed mechanically without application of mind and without assigning any reason, violating Article 19 and Article 14 of the Constitution, citing Whirlpool Corporation. The petitioner also argued that the appeal was dismissed on delay without considering the reasons provided. The respondent argued that the registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns and tax, and the appeal was rejected due to being filed beyond the period of limitation under Section 107(4) of the Act.