M/S Raj Engineering Works vs. Commissioner Uttar Pradesh Goods And Service Tax U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Raj Engineering Works, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 19.10.2019, which cancelled its GST registration. The petitioner also challenged the subsequent order dated 19.01.2023, which dismissed its appeal against the cancellation order. The appeal was dismissed primarily on the ground of limitation. The petitioner contended that the order cancelling its GST registration was a non-speaking order and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the same High Court in the case of M/S Chandra Sain, Sharda Nagar, Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor vs. U.O.I. and Others.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order dated 19.10.2019. The Court found that the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the non-speaking nature of the cancellation order had already been decided in the case of M/s Chandra Sain (supra). Following the precedent set in M/s Chandra Sain, the Court applied the same analogy to the present case. The reasoning was that if a cancellation order is non-speaking, it fails to meet the constitutional requirement of fairness and due process, as guaranteed under Article 14. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority. The Assessing Authority was directed to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing, in accordance with the law. The order dated 19.01.2023, which dismissed the appeal, was implicitly set aside as a consequence of the primary order being quashed and the matter being remanded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration dated 19.10.2019 is a non-speaking order and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order cancelling its GST registration was non-speaking, failing to provide adequate reasons for the cancellation, and therefore, it contravened the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner relied on the High Court's judgment in M/S Chandra Sain, Sharda Nagar, Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor vs. U.O.I. and Others, which dealt with similar issues regarding non-speaking orders. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (Commissioner Uttar Pradesh Goods And Service Tax U.P. And 2 Others) regarding the nature of the cancellation order or Article 14. The respondent's counsel was present, but their submissions on this specific point are not detailed.