Rupak Gorai vs. The Superintendent Range -Iii,CGST And Cx Purulia Division Bolpur Commissiionerate And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Rupak Gorai, proprietor of M/s. Rupak Telecom, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 11.09.2026 passed by the Superintendent, Range-III, Cost & CX, Purulia Division. This order rejected the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of registration. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was perverse, non-speaking, and passed mechanically despite a comprehensive reply dated 14.08.2026 submitted in response to a show cause notice dated 30.06.2026. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to appear for a personal hearing, leading to the rejection. The petitioner countered that the show cause notice did not mention any specific date or time for a personal hearing.

Held

The Court held that the order dated 11.09.2026 rejecting the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of registration was perverse, non-speaking, and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. The reasoning was based on the perusal of the show cause notice, the petitioner's reply, and the impugned order. The Court noted that the show cause notice did not specify a date and time for personal hearing, and the order of rejection was not reasoned. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and set aside. The Court directed the respondent no. 1 to revisit the issue, consider the petitioner's reply dated 14.08.2026, issue a fresh notice of hearing with a fixed date and time, afford an opportunity for personal hearing, and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The entire exercise was to be completed by 10th October, 2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 11.09.2026 rejecting the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of registration is perverse, non-speaking, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the order was passed mechanically without considering their reply dated 14.08.2026 and that the show cause notice dated 30.06.2026 did not specify a date for personal hearing, thereby violating natural justice. 2. Whether the respondents' contention that the petitioner failed to appear for a personal hearing is valid, given the petitioner's assertion that no hearing date was provided in the show cause notice. The respondents argued that the petitioner's non-appearance justified the rejection of the revocation application.