2025 (5) TMI 1509 - HC - GST

Application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration - no iota of material - show cause notice uploaded on the GST portal without any further mode of communication - ex parte order - non speaking order - petitioner not exhausted the remedy of appeal under Section 107 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The ingredient of available records and on merits or not forthcoming in the order for cancellation of registration. It is to be noted in the order for cancellation of registration there is not even write up that the petitioner has failed to avail submission of his reply to the show cause notice and so also failed to appear in person on 11.12.2023. On this count the order for cancellation of registration is dearth of material information and it is not a speaking order. It is to be noted that order for cancellation of registration is while invoking Section 29 of CGST Act 2017 which is quasi judicial function exercised by the Superintendent Patna Central. In such circumstances he was bounden duty to follow the principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan Ors 2010 (9) TMI 886 - SUPREME COURT . In the present case petitioner has not invoked remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act 2017 obviously for the reasons that impugned show cause notice and cancellation of registration order is in violation of principle of natural justice. Under what circumstances Writ Court can by pass the statutory remedy of appeal by the concerned aggrieved person has been explained in detail in case of Godrej 2023 (2) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT One of the principle is violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore the petitioner need not exhaust remedy of appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107. It is to be noted that violation of principle of natural justice would go to the root of the matter. That apart cancellation of registration has a civil consequences including violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. On this issue the Hon ble supreme Court insofar as blacklisting contractor for 10 years it was noticed that there would be a violation of Article 19(1)(g) insofar as taking away his right to participate in public contract. Taking note of this principle the petitioner has made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned show cause notice and order dated 13.11.2023 and 15.12.2023. They are set aside while restoring the registration of the petitioner. The concerned authority is hereby directed to accept belated returns in the interest of revenue and proceed to complete the formalities on receipt of returns. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

Summary

Issues Presented and Considered

The core legal questions considered by the Court include:

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 13.11.2023 for cancellation of GST registration, issued solely by uploading on the GST portal without any further mode of communication, complies with the requirements of natural justice and statutory procedure under the CGST Act, 2017.

2. Whether the ex parte order of cancellation of GST registration dated 15.12.2023, issued without a speaking order or proper consideration of available records and merits, violates the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed.

3. Whether the petitioner was required to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 before approaching the High Court by writ petition.

4. Whether the impugned actions of the respondents violate the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to carry on any profession, trade or business.

5. Whether the respondents, exercising quasi-judicial functions under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017, were obligated to issue a reasoned and speaking order in cancellation proceedings.

6. Whether the petitioner's failure to file returns and appear for personal hearing justified the cancellation of GST registration.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Validity and Communication of Show Cause Notice

The legal framework governing cancellation of GST registration is contained in Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates issuance of a show cause notice and opportunity of hearing before cancellation. The Court examined whether uploading the notice on the GST portal alone suffices as valid service, given the serious civil consequences involved, including suspension of registration and loss of business rights.

The Court noted that the notice dated 13.11.2023 was uploaded on the portal but not communicated by any other mode such as registered post with acknowledgment. It emphasized that since the cancellation affects the petitioner's civil rights, mere uploading on the portal is insufficient to satisfy the requirement of effective communication. The Court referred to the principle that multiple modes of communication are necessary to ensure notice is received and the recipient is aware of the proceedings.

Furthermore, the show cause notice required the petitioner to submit a reply within 30 days from the date of service. Assuming the notice was uploaded on 13.11.2023, the 30-day period would expire on 12.12.2023. However, the notice also fixed a personal hearing on 11.12.2023, which is before the expiry of the 30-day period. This inconsistency deprived the petitioner of reasonable time to prepare and present a defense, violating the principles of natural justice.

Thus, the Court held that the notice was defective both in mode of service and in the timeline prescribed for response and hearing.

2. Nature and Sufficiency of the Cancellation Order

Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 confers a quasi-judicial power on the authority to cancel registration. The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496, which mandates that quasi-judicial authorities must record cogent, clear, and adequate reasons in their orders to ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability.

The cancellation order dated 15.12.2023 merely referenced the show cause notice and stated the effective date of cancellation as 13.11.2023 without any discussion of the petitioner's failure to reply or appear, or any consideration of merits or available records. The order was thus a non-speaking order devoid of material findings or reasons.

The Court emphasized that an order passed without recording reasons or considering the merits is violative of the principles of natural justice and cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The absence of a reasoned order undermines the fairness and transparency of the process and constitutes a jurisdictional error.

3. Requirement of Exhaustion of Statutory Remedy under Section 107

The respondents contended that the petitioner should have first exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act before approaching the High Court by writ petition. The Court acknowledged this general principle but carved out an exception based on the violation of natural justice.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Ors. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 95), which permits bypassing of the statutory appellate remedy in cases involving fundamental violations of natural justice that go to the root of the matter.

Since the petitioner's grievance was that the show cause notice was not properly communicated and the cancellation order was a non-speaking order, the Court held that the petitioner was justified in approaching the High Court directly without exhausting the appellate remedy. This was because the violation of natural justice rendered the statutory process itself flawed.

4. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution

The Court recognized that cancellation of GST registration affects the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on any profession, trade or business. The Court cited a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Rohit Enterprises vs. Commissioner, which held that administrative actions affecting business rights must comply with principles of natural justice and fair procedure.

The Court observed that since the cancellation order was issued without proper notice and hearing, it infringed the petitioner's constitutional right to carry on business. The Court further noted that such infringement requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards.

5. Quasi-Judicial Nature of the Authority and Obligation to Issue Reasoned Orders

Section 29 of the CGST Act confers quasi-judicial powers on the Superintendent to cancel registration. The Court reiterated the binding precedent from Kranti Associates that quasi-judicial authorities must record reasons to demonstrate objective consideration of relevant facts and to prevent arbitrary exercise of power.

The Court held that the impugned cancellation order failed to meet this standard as it was a non-speaking order lacking any reference to petitioner's failure to respond or appear, or to merits of the case. This failure constituted a breach of the duty to act fairly and transparently.

6. Petitioner's Failure to File Returns and Appear for Hearing

The respondents argued that the petitioner's failure to file GST returns and appear for the hearing justified the cancellation. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had defaulted in filing returns for a continuous period, which is a ground for cancellation under the CGST Act.

However, the Court emphasized that even in such cases, the principles of natural justice and statutory procedure must be scrupulously followed. The petitioner must be given proper notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Court found that these procedural safeguards were not respected in this case.

Moreover, the petitioner attempted to file belated returns which were rejected by the system due to cancellation, creating a catch-22 situation. The Court directed the authorities to accept belated returns in the interest of revenue and complete the formalities within three months.

Significant Holdings

The Court held:

"Whereas on the basis of information which has come to my notice, it appears that your registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reasons: Failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the notice within thirty days from the date of service of this notice. You are hereby directed to appear before the undersigned on 11/12/2023 at 11:00. If you fail to furnish a reply within the stipulated date or fail to appear for personal hearing on the appointed date and time, the case will be decided ex parte on the basis of available records and on merits."

And further:

"The effective date of cancellation of your registration is 13/11/2023. It may be noted that a registered person furnishing return under sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017 is required to furnish a final return in FORM GSTAR-10 within three months of the date of this order. You are required to furnish all your pending returns. The cancellation of registration shall not affect the liability to pay tax and other dues under this Act or to discharge any obligation under this Act or the rules made thereunder for any period prior to the date of cancellation."

Crucially, the Court quoted extensively from the Supreme Court's ruling in Kranti Associates (2010) 9 SCC 496 para 47, emphasizing that:

"(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decisionmaking process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny."

Finally, the Court concluded that the impugned show cause notice and cancellation order were liable to be quashed for violation of natural justice and procedural defects. The petitioner's GST registration was restored, and the authorities were directed to accept belated returns and complete formalities within three months.