Challenge has been raised to the order passed by respondent under Section 75(4) of the UP GST Act, 2017. Since rules of natural justice are mandatory to the extent they bind the respondent authority to deal with the objection of the petitioner and if required grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before adverse order is passed, this court find no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit at this stage. Accordingly, the order is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent.

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Sri N.C. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

The petitioner assails an order dated 31.05.2023 and the consequential recovery notice dated 20.12.2023.

An assessment order is assailed primarily on that ground such order is unreasoned. The petitioner is a registered person under applicable GST laws. The assessing officer merely referred to the reply to the show cause notice and recorded that the reply is not acceptable. Therefore, the impugned order, which is completely unreasoned, calls for interference. Writ petition is allowed by quashing the impugned assessment order. As a corollary, the matter is remanded for re-consideration.

This court is inclined to accept the submission of the Petitioner that it received the Order dated 31st March 2022 only on 20th September 2022, after it had addressed the said letter dated 9th September 2022 to the Respondents. Since, the Petitioner had filed the Appeal within a period of three months from the date of communication of the said Order on 20th September 2022, by virtue of the provisions of Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner is within limitation. This court is of the view that the impugned Order will have to be set aside.

1. Considering the nature of urgency involved, the present writ petition is taken up for consideration.

1. Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Sri Gopal Verma, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Both the Petitioners and the department want cancellation of the GST registration of the Petitioner, though for a different reason. Hence the impugned order is modified to the limited extent that registration shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from the date when the Show Cause Notice was issued.

This court finds no merit in the objection by learned counsel for respondents that there is delay in filing the subject petition and the statutory remedies of revocation has not been availed of by the petitioner. Petition is accordingly allowed. JUDGMENT

The application of the Petitioner seeking cancellation is allowed. The GST registration of the Petitioner shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from the date when the petitioner applied for cancellation of GST registration subject to him complying with the requirements of Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and furnish the requisite details.

Challenge has been raised to the seizure order whereby the petitioner`s goods, namely, 540 bags of Gambier have been seized under Section 129 of U.P. GST Act, 2017. It has been submitted that seizure of goods have been effected not on the strength of the original show cause notice but on the strength of reasoning and grounds with which petitioner was never confronted. The revenue authority ought to have given a fresh notice to the petitioner to disclose the new grounds for the proposed seizure before the impugned order may have been passed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that petitioner may treat the impugned order to be the final show cause notice.

Payment of interest does not depend on the claim made by petitioner and therefore cannot be denied on the ground of waiver on the claim of interest in FORM GST-RFD-01. Thus, even though, the petitioner may not have claimed interest in his refund applications, his claim of interest cannot be denied under Section 56 of the Act as the same is mandatory and payable automatically in terms of the provisions of the Act. This court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to statutory interest at the rate of 6% starting from the date immediately after the expiry of sixty days from the date of receipt of refund applications till the date on which the refund is credited to the bank account of the petitioner.