JUDGMENT : ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J. The petitioner was a registered tax payer under the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act and is engaged in the business of trading in scrap. The petitioner has submitted this writ petition, being aggrieved by the cancellation of registration of the petitioner and also the rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner to condone the delay in submitting an application for revoking the said order of the cancellation of registration. 2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: According to the petitioner, the petitioner had obtained the registration as evidenced by Ext.P1. Later, the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 notice in Form GST REG-17 dated 16/06/2023, requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the registration of the petitioner shall not be cancelled. The reason mentioned in Ext.P2 notice was that, “Section 29(2)(e)- registration obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts”. The petitioner was also directed to appear before the officer concerned on 23.06.2023. According to the petitioner, he received the notice belatedly, and after the date fixed for appearance, and accordingly, Ext.P3 order was passed by the 1 st respondent, cancelling the registration by issuing Form GST REG-19. The said order was passed on 30.06.2023. Later, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application dated 16.10.2023 before the 2 nd respondent for revoking the order of cancellation and he also sought to condone the delay in submitting an application for revocation of the order of cancellation. 3. Acting upon Ext.P4, Ext.P5 show cause notice was issued by the 2 nd respondent, as the 2 nd respondent found no satisfactory reasons to condone the delay and thus required the petitioner to furnish the reasons for condonation of delay. In that notice, the petitioner was directed to appear before the 2 nd respondent on 01.02.2024. According to the petitioner, as the petitioner's parents were unwell, the petitioner could not appear for personal hearing on 01.02.2024 as required in Ext.P5. Accordingly, Ext.P6 order was passed rejecting the request for condonation of delay in filing revocation application and the application as such was rejected. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances challenging Exts.P2, P3, P5 and P6. 4. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the respondents 1 and 2. Accordingly, Ext.P6 order was passed rejecting the request for condonation of delay in filing revocation application and the application as such was rejected. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances challenging Exts.P2, P3, P5 and P6. 4. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the respondents 1 and 2. In the said counter affidavit, it is specifically averred that, as part of the special All India drive to detect suspicious/fake GSTINs, an inspection was conducted in the premises of the petitioner and during such inspection, it was found that, the firm of the petitioner is non- existent at the principal place of business. Accordingly, a mahazar dated 14.06.2023 was prepared, and the statements of two persons were also recorded, i.e., the statements of the landlord of the building at the time when the registration was taken and also the subsequent purchaser of the said building. A report of this inspection was conveyed by the Assistant Commissioner, to the 1 st respondent and Ext.P2 was issued on the basis of the same. It was also averred that, even though ample opportunities were granted to the petitioner, for personal appearance, there was no response from his part, and it was in those circumstances Ext.P3 order was passed cancelling the registration. Even though the petitioner submitted Ext.P4, a notice was issued in the nature of Ext.P5 requiring the petitioner to furnish the reasons for condoning the delay. The same was not properly responded to, which compelled the 2 nd respondent to pass Ext.P6 order rejecting the application of the petitioner. 5. I have heard Sri.K.S.Bharathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P. Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 6. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, Ext.P2 show cause notice does not disclose the reasons which prompted the 1 st respondent to initiate proceedings for cancellation of registration. On going through Ext.P2, it was pointed out that what is referred to in Ext.P2 is that the registration is proposed to be cancelled, as the registration is obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. On going through Ext.P2, it was pointed out that what is referred to in Ext.P2 is that the registration is proposed to be cancelled, as the registration is obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. Therefore, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, since, what was the act that amounted to fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts, was not specifically referred to in Ext.P2, the said notice cannot be treated as a proper notice in compliance of the statutory requirement contemplated under Section 29 of the CGST Act. 7. However, when considering the aforesaid question, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, even though the petitioner raises a contention that Ext.P2 does not contain proper reasons for the proposed cancellation, in Ext.P4, which is the application submitted by the petitioner for revoking the cancellation of registration, he specifically refers to the ground on which the registration was cancelled and attempted to explain with the support of documents that he was indeed carrying out the business in the premises in question. Therefore, even though Ext.P2 does not contain the facts which amounted to fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts according to the 1 st respondent, it is evident from Ext.P4 that, the petitioner had understood properly the circumstances under which the proceedings for cancellation of registration was initiated, and the order was ultimately passed cancelling the registration after considering the same. 8. There is yet another aspect. Ext.P2 was admittedly received by the petitioner, but, yet there was no response from the part of the petitioner in furnishing any reply to the same or appearing before the 1 st respondent on the day on which the matter was scheduled for personal hearing. The explanations offered by the petitioner, for not submitting the reply and for non-appearance before the 1 st respondent, in Ext.P4 and the writ petition are also mutually contradictory. It is to be noted that, in Ext.P4, which is the request submitted by the petitioner for revocation of cancellation of registration, it is specifically stated that, even though the petitioner received the notice requiring the petitioner to appear before the 1 st respondent on 26.03.2023, he could not file reply, before the specified date due to hectic business work. It is to be noted that, in Ext.P4, which is the request submitted by the petitioner for revocation of cancellation of registration, it is specifically stated that, even though the petitioner received the notice requiring the petitioner to appear before the 1 st respondent on 26.03.2023, he could not file reply, before the specified date due to hectic business work. However, in the writ petition, the averment made by the petitioner is to the effect that, as the petitioner got Ext.P2 notice only on a later date, the petitioner personally approached the 1 st respondent objecting to the show cause notice and sought some time to approach a proper consultant, who can give him appropriate legal guidance in this writ petition. Such an averment is conspicuously absent in Ext.P4 request made by him, which is the first response of the petitioner in connection with the cancellation of registration. 9. From the above aspects, it is evident that, even though Ext.P2 does not contain the details of the acts which according to the 1 st respondent amounted to fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts, the petitioner was aware of the reasons on which the registration was sought to be cancelled, but, yet he did not appear for hearing. Thus, there is lapses on the part of the petitioner in responding to the notices served upon him within the statutory period. 10. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is with respect to the sustainability of Ext.P6 order of rejection. According to the petitioner, even though the petitioner furnished reasons for explaining the delay, the same were not properly considered. While considering this aspect also, it is to be noted that, as against Ext.P4, which itself was filed, after the statutory period contemplated, Ext.P5 show cause notice was issued by the 2 nd respondent, requiring the petitioner to furnish the reasons for condonation delay. In the said notice the petitioner was required to appear before the 2 nd respondent on 01.02.2024, but the petitioner failed to appear before the officer concerned. The explanation offered by the petitioner, for non-appearance in response to Ext.P5, as per the averments made in the writ petition is that, the petitioner’s parents were unwell and due to the medical condition the petitioner was not in a position to present for personal hearing on that day. The explanation offered by the petitioner, for non-appearance in response to Ext.P5, as per the averments made in the writ petition is that, the petitioner’s parents were unwell and due to the medical condition the petitioner was not in a position to present for personal hearing on that day. In this regard, it is also to be noted that, no documents are produced to substantiate the said contention and moreover, the reasons for not seeking some more time for submitting a response to Ext.P5 are also not mentioned in the writ petition. Thus, on carefully going through all the documents produced in this writ petition, it can be seen that, there are lapses on the part of the petitioner in diligently contesting the matter. 11. As far as Ext.P2 notice is concerned, the petitioner did not respond to the same, within the time specified therein, and the reasons mentioned by the petitioner in Ext.P4 and the writ petition for non appearance are mutually contradictory. This Court has already taken note of the above. Similarly, even though an application for revocation of order of cancellation of registration was submitted, the same by itself was submitted after the statutory period and the notice issued by the 2 nd respondent requiring the petitioner to furnish the reasons for the delay was also remained without any response and in the writ petition also, the petitioner is unable to furnish the proper reasons for the same. 12. Moreover, it is discernible from the mahazar prepared at the time of inspection conducted in the premises of the petitioner on 14.06.2023 that, it contained the statement of the person who was the then owner of the building, with whom the petitioner had entered into an agreement for lease of the building. As per the said statement, the property wherein the building occupied by the petitioner is situated was sold, during the subsistence of the lease agreement, which claimed to have been executed between the petitioner and the said landlord. The statement of the subsequent purchaser of the building was also recorded and it forms part of the mahazar. According to the said person, the petitioner does not have any connection with the building in question and he never occupied the premises. The statement of the subsequent purchaser of the building was also recorded and it forms part of the mahazar. According to the said person, the petitioner does not have any connection with the building in question and he never occupied the premises. The fact that the property wherein the building which is occupied by the petitioner is sold by the original landlord is also not within the knowledge of the petitioner, going by the pleadings in the writ petition. Thus, when all the aforesaid aspects are taken into account; particularly considering the gross lapses on the part of the petitioner in responding to the statutory notices, I do not find any justifiable reasons to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.