ORDER : Mauna M. Bhatt, J. 1. Rule. Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of all respondents. Considering the issue involved and with the consent of the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking directions for quashing and setting aside of (i) show cause notice dated 23.2.2022, (ii) an order dated 8.3.2022 cancelling the registration of the petitioner and (iii) an appeal order dated 7.9.2022, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of limitation. 3. Facts in brief are, 3.1. The petitioner is a manufacturing unit of M.S. Billets. It has been purchasing sponge, iron and steel scraps from various firms and companies located in the State of Gujarat and after manufacturing M.S. Billets, selling the said goods to various buyers. The business activity on steel products undertaken by the petitioner is within the term ‘supply’ as provided under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “GST Act”). Therefore, the petitioner upon incorporation, applied for registration under GST Laws and was given registration under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for trading of goods manufactured by it. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner is maintaining all the records of its business transactions with its suppliers and buyers and was also filing returns as mandated under the GST Act. 3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that till August 2021, the petitioner was abiding by the procedure prescribed under the GST law and was also discharging its tax liability in accordance with law. The petitioner had filed FORM GSTR 1 reflecting details of outwards supplies and also FORM GSTR 3B reflecting details of outward tax supplies, Input Tax Credit claimed and payment of tax. However, on account of prolonged period of Covid-19 Pandemic, the petitioner company faced serious financial crisis and could not file its return from August, 2021 onwards till January 2022 i.e. a consecutive period of 6 months. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had also faced difficulties as no person conversant with the procedures of GST Laws was available who could make timely compliances. 3.3. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had also faced difficulties as no person conversant with the procedures of GST Laws was available who could make timely compliances. 3.3. As the petitioner failed in filing the return from August, 2021 to January, 2022, a show-cause notice dated 23.2.2022, for cancellation of registration came to be issued by respondent No. 3 proposing to cancel the registration. In the notice, it was stated that the registration of the petitioner stands suspended w.e.f. 23.2.2022. In the said show cause notice, the petitioner was provided an opportunity of filing reply within seven working days from the date of service of notice. The notice specifically stated that in case no reply is filed or no person appears for personal hearing on the appointed date, the case would be decided ex-parte. Admittedly, the petitioner neither filed reply nor attended a hearing as the entire staff of the company had left the job and the Directors of the Company were busy resolving the problem of revival of its business. In consequences of the show-cause notice dated 23.2.2022, the order dated 8.3.2022 was passed cancelling the registration of the petitioner. The said order records that the effective date of cancellation as 1.8.2021. 3.4. The petitioner had not filed any application seeking revocation of cancellation of registration. However, upon having to come to know about the order of cancellation of registration dated 8.3.2022, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority seeking revival of registration. As the appeal filed by the petitioner was belated by 63 days, the appellate authority rejected the same under order dated 7.9.2022 by observing that the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay, if the appeal is filed after the prescribed statutory period. Aggrieved by the aforestated actions/ orders of the respondents, the present petition is filed. 4. This Court had issued notice on 12.10.2022. The respondents entered appearance and filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No.2 dated 22.11.2022. 5. Mr. A.S. Tripathi, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the show cause notice dated 23.2.2022 and the order cancelling the registration of the petitioner dated 8.3.2022 are illegal, as they are on erroneous consideration of facts as well as in clear violation of principles of nature justice. 5. Mr. A.S. Tripathi, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the show cause notice dated 23.2.2022 and the order cancelling the registration of the petitioner dated 8.3.2022 are illegal, as they are on erroneous consideration of facts as well as in clear violation of principles of nature justice. He submitted that the petitioner ought to have preferred an application seeking revocation of suspension, however, it could not do so as the company was in very bad shape. Referring to the order dated 8.3.2022, he submitted despite no reply filed to the show cause notice, it refers to a purported reply dated 6.3.2022. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works vs. State of Gujarat reported in [2022] 137 taxmann.com 332 and submitted that as observed by this Court, not adhering to the procedure prescribed under the Act would amount to breach of statutory provisions and therefore, the orders are bad in law. 5.1. In relation to the order of the appellate authority dated 7.9.2022, learned advocate relied upon the decision of Madras High Court dated 25.4.2022, in the case of Maaruthi Foundations Pvt. Ltd in Writ Petition No.9905 of 2022 W.M.P. Nos. 9619 &9621 of 2022 to submit that in similar fact situation, the court after quashing and setting aside the order of appellate authority has granted liberty to the petitioner to file returns with certain conditions. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned AGP referring to the affidavit-in-reply submitted that admittedly, the petitioner had failed in filing the returns for more than 6 months period and, therefore, the action of respondent No.2 cannot be stated to be illegal. In relation to the order of the appellate authority dated 7.9.2022, relying upon the decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Nandan Steels and Power Limited vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in WA/104/2021 dated 10.8.2022, she submitted that the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in similar fact situation has confirmed the order of appellate authority of cancellation of registration, if the same is barred by limitation. 7. At this stage, learned Advocate for the petitioner has assured that the petitioner is ready and willing to make necessary compliance under the provisions of the Act. 8. 7. At this stage, learned Advocate for the petitioner has assured that the petitioner is ready and willing to make necessary compliance under the provisions of the Act. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, it is noticed that it is not in dispute that the petitioner could not file its returns under GST Act, for the period from August, 2021 to January, 2022 because of the financial crisis faced in the business, on account of Covid-19 Pandemic. The respondent no. 2 has in its affidavit-in-reply not controverted this aspect. 8.1. We take notice of the fact that the petitioner has challenged three actions/ orders passed by the respondent namely: (i) show cause notice dated 23.2.2022, (ii) an order dated 8.3.2022 cancelling the registration of the petitioner and (iii) an appeal order dated 7.9.2022, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of limitation. In respect of show cause notice dated 23.2.2022, we notice that the reason mentioned thereunder is non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months. Though the notice states that the case will be decided ex-parte in case no reply is filed within the stipulated date or failure to appear for personal hearing on the appointed date, evidently, there is no appointed date mentioned for securing personal hearing for the petitioner company. Moreover, the notice straightaway without prior intimation suspends the registration of the petition w.e.f. 23.2.2022 i.e. the date of notice, without any prior intimation. Therefore, we believe that this notice is issued without application of mind as well as in breach of principles of natural justice qua suspension of registration. 8.2. In respect of order dated 8.3.2022, though the petitioner had not filed any reply to the show-cause notice within the time given, despite that the order of cancellation of registration dated 8.3.2022, refers to the reply of the petitioner dated 6.3.2022, which in our opinion shows non-application of mind by the authority. The authority has self-contradicted themselves by initially giving reference to reply dated 6.3.2022 and immediately in the next line stating that no reply to the show cause notice has been submitted. Moreover, in the order the date of cancellation of registration is made effective from 1.8.2021 as opposed to 23.2.2022 mentioned in the show cause notice. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the order dated 8.3.2022 is also issued without due application of mind. 8.3. Moreover, in the order the date of cancellation of registration is made effective from 1.8.2021 as opposed to 23.2.2022 mentioned in the show cause notice. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the order dated 8.3.2022 is also issued without due application of mind. 8.3. At this stage, it would be apposite to note that the outstanding demand of tax as shown in the order dated 8.3.2022 is NIL. Therefore, it can be inferred that prior to August, 2021, the petitioner had regularly filed its return of income and complied with the provisions of the GST Act and the procedure contemplated thereunder. It was only because of the reasons mentioned above that the petitioner could not file its return from August 2021 to January 2022. Therefore, barring the non-filing of return for six consecutive months, there was no outstanding tax liability of the petitioner. 8.4. In respect of order dated 7.9.2022, admittedly the appeal could not be heard on merits as the same was rejected on the ground of limitation. Therefore, though we are conscious that opportunity inspite of being provided in the show cause notice dated 23.2.2022 was not availed of by the petitioner, at no stage can it be said that the petitioner was heard to explain the delay in filing returns. The reason for not being able to reply to the show cause notice in time has been sufficiently explained by the petitioner, which has not been controverted by the respondent in their affidavit-in-reply. Additionally, though the show cause notice dated 23.2.2022 talks about personal hearing on an appointed date, no such date was also prescribed, thereby providing no avenue to the petitioner to present its case. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid peculiar position of facts, we believe that it would serve the ends of justice in the event the petitioner is provided a fresh opportunity to respond to the show cause notice. Resultantly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly partly allowed. The orders dated 8.3.2022 and 7.9.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside. The registration of the petitioner is restored forthwith and the matter is restored to the file of respondent No.2 from the stage of filing of reply to the show-cause notice dated 23.2.2022. Resultantly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly partly allowed. The orders dated 8.3.2022 and 7.9.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside. The registration of the petitioner is restored forthwith and the matter is restored to the file of respondent No.2 from the stage of filing of reply to the show-cause notice dated 23.2.2022. Considering that the petitioner has assured this Court of ensuring necessary compliance, we direct the petitioner to file its reply within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If sought for, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law, post which the authority shall pass a speaking order without being influenced by the observations made by the Court. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost. Notice discharged.