Facts-

• The Appellant Swarupa Ghosh has filed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the revocation application dated 21st March 2022 and all other earlier proceedings that were dismissed on the ground that an appellate remedy is available under the Act. 
• The first show cause notice was issued on 23rd August, 2021 proposing to cancel the registration on the ground that there is a contravention of Section 29(12)(a) of the WBGST Act.
• The Appellant submitted her reply and thereafter an order of cancellation was passed on 1st September, 2021, which, according to the appellant, was devoid of reasons. The appellant filed an application for revocation of the said order and by an order dated 3rd November, 2021, the registration was restored. At that point of time, the appellant proposed to shift his place of business and therefore, submitted an application on 3rd November, 2021 for cancellation of the registration. Various documents were sought for by the department.
• However, by order dated 25th November, 2021, the authority rejected the application filed by the appellant for cancellation of registration as balance sheet and profit and loss account was not submitted as per the notice. On the same date, i.e. on 25th November, 2021, the second notice for cancellation of the registration was issued on the allegation that the appellant had obtained registration by means of fraud and willful misstatement or suppression of facts. 

Issue-

• Whether the Writ petition filed by the appellant  is sustainable?

Order-

• The Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the order passed by the authority canceling the application for revocation is devoid of reasons. None of the grounds raised by the appellant has been dealt with. It is not clear as to why the department has been dragging the appellant for such a long period, i.e. from August, 2021. If, according to the respondent, there is any adverse material, then a proper show cause notice should have been given to the appellant and her objection should have been invited and further affording an opportunity of personal hearing, a speaking order should have been passed.
• It is high time that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes takes note of the manner in which the subordinate officers have been dealing with cases, more particularly matters concerning cancellation of registration and it would augur well to conduct an orientation programme to enable to the officers to be sensitized as to how and on what manner the proceedings should be initiated and how it should be dealt with and how speaking order should be passed.
• In the instant case there has been total violation of principles of natural justice, the order of rejection of the revocation application is a non-speaking order without considering the vital facts, the Court is inclined to set aside such an order.
• The Court held that the order passed in the writ petition is set aside and the writ petition is allowed and the order of rejection of the application for revocation dated 21st March, 2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority.