Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017  – Registration ––- The petitioner challenged an order dated 13.05.2022 rejecting his application for registration under the provisions of the Act on the ground that the same is cryptic and entirely non-speaking. The counsel for the respondent referred to Rule 9(4), particularly the deployment of the word 'may' grants discretion to the authority to assign reasons. The court observed that an order of this nature is indefensive insofar as it is non-speaking, arbitrary and evidently has not taken into account the explanation furnished by the petitioner. The court further observed that the word ‘may’ only refers to the discretion to reject and not to blatantly violate the principles of natural justice. If the assessing authority is inclined to reject the application, which he is entitled to, he must assign reasons for such objection and adhere to proper procedure, including due process.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the petitioner be heard on the objection raised and orders be passed on the application for registration dated 13.05.2022 within a period of four weeks.