Section 29/30 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Registration --The petitioner challenged the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the Appeal Authority and the orders dated 21.08.2020 and 13.08.2020. The petitioner was issued a notice on 22.07.2020 under Section 29 of the Act whereby the registration granted was proposed to be cancelled on the ground that “Your firm was found bogus in inspection of SIB. Information received from headquarter.” No further notice was issued in that proceeding and on 13.08.2020, the respondent authority cancelled the registration without disclosing any further reason. The petitioner filed an application for revocation of the aforesaid order under Section 30. The petitioner received a notice dated 21.08.2020, wherein no date or time was fixed for personal appearance/hearing. The petitioner uploaded its written reply on 21.08.2020 and on the same day the respondent authority passed the order, rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation of registration. The petitioner challenged this order in appeal, which was also dismissed. The court observed that no registration may be cancelled by merely describing the firm that had obtained it, was “bogus”. The word “bogus” has not been used by the statute. Registration having been granted earlier, the obligation existed on the authority to specify the exact reason/charge on which it proposed to cancel the registration. Thus, the charge levelled in the notice dated 22.07.2020 and as was reiterated in the order dated 13.08.2020 and the further notice dated 21.08.2020 are wholly, vague. Effectively, it prevented the petitioner to rebut the same. The court also observed that the order dated 21.08.2020 is as vague and defective as the initial notice inasmuch as, only reason given in that order is that the assessee firm is “bogus”. The only proper course the Appeal Authority may have adopted, may have been to set aside the orders dated 13.08.2020 and 21.08.2020. Unless the Appeal Authority had corrected that error of the original authority especially in matters of procedure, such mistakes are liable to be repeated.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court  quashed the orders dated 12.02.2021, 21.08.2020 and 13.08.2020 and left it open to the respondent authority to issue a fresh notice on any specified ground mentioned under Section 29(2) of the Act. Further directed that a copy of this order be communicated to the Commissioner, State Tax, U.P. for effective communication and appropriate action so that such cases do not arise in future.