ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)

1. The petitioner is before this Court questioning and challenging the action of the respondent authority in violating the principle of natural justice by issuing cryptic show cause notice as well as the cryptic order with the following prayers:

“13…

A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by respondent NO.2 herein.

C. Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 herein.

D. Such other and further relief or relieves as may be deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. This Court on 30.11.2022 had issued the notice for final disposal.

3. Today, we have heard the learned advocate, Mr.Parv Mehta appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP, Ms.Pooja Ashar.

3.1 According to the learned AGP, the appellate authority could not have interfered as the delay is of more than 120 days. Again, she does not dispute that it is auto generated show cause notice so also the order.

4. This Court in Special Civil Application No.18860 of 2021 in Aggarwal Dying and Printing Works vs. State of Gujarat and allied matters dealt with the issue of limitation.

5. Noticing the cryptic notice as also the order which again is very cryptic and impugned in this petition applying the decision of this Court Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works (supra) and the directions issued by this Court, according to us, challenge deserves to be entertained. This amounts to violation of principle of natural justice as the person concerned would have no opportunity to deal with the matter as otherwise required of him. Again, the very purpose of issuance of show cause notice is to avail an opportunity to the parties and if the matter can be addressed at that stage, the very purpose of the notice get frustrated once there is such cryptic notice which makes hardly any sense. It would not require further dilation of the issue since in case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works (supra) the Court had extensively and elaborately dealt with the same and also given the directions extensively for the authority to follow. Apt would be to reproduce those findings and observations as well as the directions:

“10. Thus, upon appreciation of the scheme of Act, where specific forms have been prescribed at each stage right from registration, cancellation and revocation of cancellation of registration, the same are to be strictly adhered too. At the same time, it is equally important that the Proper Officer empowered under the said Act adheres to the principles of natural justice.

11. At the outset, we notice that it is settled legal position of law that reasons are heart and soul of the order and non communication of same itself amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in miscarriage of justice. This Court is bound by the said judgments hereinafter referred to. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came for consideration before the Supreme Court in several cases. Initially, the Supreme Court recognized a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi-judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of the supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [1970] 1 SCR 457.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgments in the cases of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad [2012] 4 SCC 407, Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. [2010] 13 SCC 336; Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan [2010] 9 SCC 496; Abdul Ghaffar vs. State of Bihar [2008] 3 SCC 258, has expanded the horizon of natural justice and reasons have been treated part of the natural justice. It has gone to the extent in holding that reasons are heart and soul of the order. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when it is subject to appeal/revision. It is to be noted that in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering various judgments formulated certain principles which are set out below:

“a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system.

j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

k. If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or ‘rubber-stamp reasons’ is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.

m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny.

n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making the said requirement is now virtually a component to human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553 at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions.”

o. In all common law jurisdictions judgment play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “Due Process”.

Thus, the position of law that emerges from the decisions mentioned above, is that assignment of reasons is imperative in nature and the speaking order doctrine mandates assigning the reasons which is the heart and soul of the decision and said reasons must be the result of independent re-appreciation of evidence adduced and documents produced in the case.

Xxx

19.. In the result, all the writ applications deserve to be allowed solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and, accordingly, the writ applications are allowed. We quash and set aside the respective show cause notices of all the writ applications, seeking cancellation of registration as well as the consequential respective impugned orders cancelling registration with liberty to the respondent No. 2 to issue fresh notice with particulars of reasons incorporated with details and thereafter to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ applicants, and to pass appropriate speaking orders on merits. It is needless to mention that it shall be open for the writ applicants to respond to such notices by filing objections / reply with necessary documents, if relied upon. We clarify that we have not gone into merits of the case.”

6. Noticing the fact that here also the initial notice which has been issued is of one line “Any Taxpayer other than composition taxpayer has not filed returns for a continuous period of fix months.” And the order passed for cancellation of registration also of half life “Your request is no consider.”

7. This is in clear violation of principle of natural justice, as this Court in detailed has already been made out a case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works (supra) and thereafter various cases. This Court also in such a matter has brought this fact to the notice of learned AGP and it has been given to understand to this Court that now it has been circulated to all concerned. This notice is of October 2021 and therefore, this mistake.

8. Resultantly, following the Coordinate Bench’s decision in case of Aggarwal Dyeing & Printing Works (supra), this petition is ALLOWED solely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The show cause notice and the impugned order are quashed and set aside granting a liberty to the respondent No.2 to issue a fresh show cause notice with particular reasons incorporated with details and thereafter to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant and to pass appropriate speaking order on merit which shall be done physically as directed in the very decision. With the aforesaid, the GST Registration Number of the applicant stands restored forthwith