Court was inclined to quash impugned order on ground that same was a non-speaking order passed without any application of mind, in regard to show cause notices issued under Rule 22(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(a) To issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside an order dated 25/02/2020 passed by the respondent no.3 for cancellation of registration at Annexure-A to this petition.

(b) To issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.3 to pay compensation to the petitioner as may be deemed fit to this Hon'ble Court for his unqualified and unwarranted actions taken without following due process of law.

(c) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, to stay implementation and operation of the order dated 25.2.2020 passed by the respondent no.3 of cancellation of registration at Annexure-A to this petition on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court.

(d) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of the justice and the petitioner.” The writ-applicant is a proprietor of a proprietary concern running in the name of Heugo Metal. The writ-applicant is registered with the GST authority. The registration is dated 26th June 2018.

It appears from the materials on record that the respondent no.2 issued a show-cause notice dated 20th November 2019 in the Form GST REG-17, calling upon the writ-applicant to show-cause as to why the registration under the GST should not be cancelled. Such notice issued by the respondent no.2 is under Rule 22(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The notice dated 20th November 2019 referred to above reads as under :

“We have heard Mr. Chetan Pandya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned AGP for the State respondents on advance copy. Mr.Dave waives notice. He prays for and is granted five days’ time to obtain instructions in the matter.

Prima facie we are convinced that the order impugned dated 25.02.2020(Annexure-A to the petition) cannot be sustained for several reasons, some of them being :-

(a) It refers to the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice but in the same continuation, it mentions that no reply has been received.

(b) No reasons are recorded for cancellation.

(c) No facts are mentioned.

(d) No discussion on the reply.

Mr. Pandya has also pointed out that application for revocation of the said cancellation was filed on 28.02.2020 within three days of the cancellation of the order but the same is still pending and the Officer concerned is sitting tight over the application for revocation which is a statutory application moved under Section 30 of the Act. Let this matter be placed on top of the board on 10.12.2020.”

We have heard Mr.Chetan Pandya, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant and Mr.K.M.Antani, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

Mr.Pandya, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant has raised manifold contentions questioning the legality and validity of the very action on the part of the respondents in initiating the proceedings and also the final order passed cancelling the registration.

It would not be out of place at this stage to state that the writ-applicant has one more grievance to redress. It is pointed out that an application was preferred under Section 30 of the GST Act seeking revocation of cancellation of the registration way back in February 2020. However, till this date, even such application filed under Section 30 of the Act has not been decided.

Be that as it may, we are inclined to quash the impugned order dated 25th February 2020 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer on the short ground that the same is a non-speaking order passed without any application of mind. It is very sad to note the manner in which the show-cause notices came to be issued. The show-cause notices, referred to above, are absolutely bereft of any material particulars or information, and it is but obvious that in the absence of the same, how does the authority expect the writ-applicant to respond to the same in an effective and meaningful manner.

We fail to understand that having dropped the proceedings once, what prompted the authority to issue a second show-cause notice and even after discharging the second show-cause notice, what prompted the authority to issue a third show-cause notice and that too on the very same day and date of the discharge of the second show-cause notice.

We are left with no other option but to quash the impugned order dated 25th February 2020 at Annexure-A.

In the result, this writ-application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 dated 25th February 2020 (Annexure-A to this petition) is hereby quashed and set-aside.

(J. B. PARDIWALA, J.)

(ILESH J. VORA, J.)