Registration Cancellation Sustained Due to Non-Appearance Despite Hearing Opportunity

Case Details:
Case Title: M/s Bhaiyalal Contractors v. State of U.P. & 2 Others
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Petition No.: Writ Tax No. 1212 of 2024
Category: GST Registration Cancellation
Date of Judgment: 14.05.2025
Relevant Sections: Section 29 of CGST Act, Rule 22 of CGST Rules

Facts of the Case

[Para 2–4]:

• A show cause notice dated 12.04.2023 was issued for cancellation of GST registration. Petitioner claimed that the notice did not mention any venue or designate any Proper Officer.

• On 03.06.2023, registration was cancelled. Appeal against it was dismissed on 23.04.2024.

• In Writ Tax No. 742 of 2024, High Court remanded the matter on 17.05.2024 directing the appellate authority to pass a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing.

• Petitioner alleged that on 12.06.2024, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal again without granting an actual opportunity of hearing.

Question(s) in Consideration

[Para 3, 4, 7, 8]:

• Whether cancellation of GST registration is sustainable when initial notice was allegedly not issued by a Proper Officer?

• Whether the appellate order dated 12.06.2024 violated principles of natural justice by failing to grant a personal hearing despite High Court’s directions?

Observations of the Court

[Para 7]:

• Though the petitioner raised issues regarding the validity of the initial show cause notice, those grounds were never raised before the appellate authority and hence cannot be entertained for the first time in a writ petition.

[Para 8–11]:

• High Court had earlier directed the appellate authority to grant hearing. Notice for hearing on 12.06.2024 was served, reply was filed, but petitioner did not appear.

• The order sheet dated 12.06.2024 had no signature of petitioner or counsel, unlike earlier proceedings.

• No explanation was offered in the writ petition or at the hearing as to why the petitioner failed to attend on the said date.

[Para 12]:

• The respondent’s affidavit and records indicated service of notice and absence of petitioner on the hearing date.

[Para 13]:

• Judgments cited by the petitioner were not applicable in the present case.

Judgment of the Court

[Para 14–15]:

• The writ petition was dismissed.

• The court found no procedural lapse or denial of natural justice on the part of the authorities.

Between Fine Lines:

1. Petitioner’s registration was cancelled under Section 29 after non-compliance with a show cause notice.

2. High Court initially remanded the matter for hearing, but petitioner again defaulted.

3. Arguments about the invalidity of initial notice were not raised in the appeal, hence not considered.

4. Court upheld that once hearing was granted and not availed, natural justice wasn’t breached.

5. A procedural lapse must be raised at the right forum and time for it to be considered.

Summary of Referred Cases

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”