Heard.

By this petition, the petitioner has assailed legality and validity of show cause notice for cancellation of registration passed on 06.04.2022.

Apart from raising factual issues with regard to justification for exercise of power, one of the main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the power to suspend registration during the pendency of proceedings for cancellation of registration, as envisaged under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as’ the Act of 2017’), a drastic power has been conferred on the authority under the proviso where the registration may remain suspended even during the pendency of the proceedings relating to cancellation of registration. He would submit that as the effect of suspension of registration during the pendency of the proceedings is drastic in nature, the authority ought to have decided the matter one way or the other, but till date, no decision has been taken in the matter.

He further contends that even proviso to Sub-Section 1 of Section 29 of the Act of 2017 may not be attracted in the present case.

We find that the authority in purported exercise of power under Section 29 of Sub-Section 1 of the Act of 2017, while initiating proceeding for cancellation of registration has resorted to its power to suspend registration during the pendency of the proceedings and the petitioner has taken substantial grounds in reply to show cause notice. His contention that in the present case, proviso may not be attracted, would also require consideration.

The power being drastic in nature, which has the effect of bringing to a grinding halt, a running business, the authority is required to decide the matter at the earliest where it takes recourse to its power of suspension of registration during pendency of the proceedings for cancellation of registration.

Even though reply was filed on 07-08/04/2022, it has been canvased before us that till date, authority has not passed any order.

If a drastic power of suspension of registration even during pendency of the proceedings has been conferred on the authority under the Statute, the proceedings itself are required to be brought to its logical conclusion one way or the other in a time bound manner and merely because the Statute does not provide any limitation for completion of proceedings, the authority cannot be allowed to sit over the matter and leave the person to suffer suspension of registration and all consequences to follow where the entire operations are brought to suspension.

In the conspectus of aforesaid consideration and the material before us, we are of the view that the authority was required to decide the matter one way or the other within a reasonable time.

Reply having been filed on 07-08/04/2022, the matter ought to be decided at the earliest, which has not been done till date. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, we are inclined to direct respondent No.3 to conclude the proceedings within an outer limit of 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. A speaking order shall be passed in the matter, taking into consideration the reply of the petitioner including whether the proviso to Sub-Section 1 of Section 29 of the Act of 2017 could be taken recourse to in the facts and circumstances of the present case as it is not a case relating to cancellation of registration filed by the registered person, but proceedings initiated by the authority under the Act of 2017. If the decision is not taken within a period of 15 days, the order of suspension of registration shall come to an automatic end.

Needless to emphasize that in case any order adverse to the interest of the petitioner is passed, he would be at liberty to challenge the same.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.