Case Law Details
Eficaz Project Limited Liability Partnership Vs Commissioner, Uttarakhand GST Commissionerate (Uttarakhand High Court)
The second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, even if at all a decision was required to be taken on an application submitted by the petitioner on 30th May, 2020, requesting for the cancellation of the registration, if at all, the decision was required to be taken after the expiry of the period of 30 days, as provided under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of the Rules, in that eventuality too, the implications of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act, ought to have been followed and the petitioner should have been mandatorily provided with an opportunity of hearing and in the absence of there being any prior show cause issued to the petitioner, calling his explanation, the order of cancellation of his registration would be apparently and statutorily bad in the eyes of law.
Even if the impugned order of 12th July, 2021, is taken into consideration, there is not even a single whisper that after the expiry of 30 days, as provided under Sub-rule (3) Rule 22, when the cancellation was being resorted to, though apart from the fact that the office concerned has become functus officio after the expiry of 30 days, even if at all, the cancellation was required, in that eventuality, then the petitioner ought to have been heard.
On these short premise, the learned counsel for the parties agreed that because the order impugned apparently suffers from the violation of a statutory provisions of non-providing of any opportunity as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act, with the consensus of the parties, the impugned order is quashed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
