2025(07)LCX0174

Allahabad High Court

Suraj Kumar Upadhyay

Versus

State Of U.P.

WRIT TAX No. - 1356 of 2024 decided on 15-07-2025

Neutral Citation No

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113575

Court No. - 7

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1356 of 2024

Petitioner :- M/S Suraj Kumar Upadhyay
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranjal Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

1. Heard Mr. Dheeraj Dwivedi holding brief of Mr. Pranjal Shukla for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State-respondents.

2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 24.7.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade -2, (Appeal), State Tax, Azamgarh, respondent no. 2 and the order dated 20.4.2022 passed by Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector -3, Azamgarh i.e. respondent no. 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is registered firm engaged in the business of work contract, retail business, whole sale business, having GSTIN No. 09AEZPU9058F1ZE. He submits that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 6.4.2022 for cancellation of its GST registration but while issuing the show cause notice, the opportunity of hearing was not granted under Section 29 (4) of UP GST Act. He submits that vide order dated 20.4.2022, respondent no. 3 has cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner without mentioning any ground. He submits that the order of cancellation of registration indicates that reply was submitted on 19.4.2022 in response to the notice dated 6.4.2022 but it has been further referred that no reply has been submitted by the petitioner, which shows that the order has been passed without application of mind. He further submits that the appellate court has dismissed the appeal on the ground of latches without looking to the merit of the case.

4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of M/s One Place Infrastructure Vs. State of UP and others (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:69777) and Wings Security Services Vs. State of UP and another (Neutral Citation No. 2025: AHC: 53133-DB).

5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.

7. The record shows that a show cause notice was given to the petitioner for failure of filing of returns for continuous period of six months but by the impugned order, the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled without assigning any reason. Further, the order of cancellation indicates that the reply was submitted by the petitioner on 19.4.2022 but in the order it has been mentioned that no reply has been submitted by the petitioner, which itself shows that the orders have been passed without application of mind.

8. This Court in the case of M/s One Place Infrastructure has held as under:-

"9. The record shows that the quasi judicial order which has an adverse effect on the right of the petitioner to run business as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the same has been done without any application of mind which is neither the intent of the Act nor can it be held to be in compliance of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that his appeal has not been decided on merit though the same has been dismissed on the ground of latches, therefore, the doctrine of merger will have no application.

11. The impugned order which affect the right of the petitioner and has devoid of any reason, can be challenged before this Court as held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, 1998 (8) SCC 1.

12. This Court in the case of M/s Surya Associates Vs. Union of India and others (Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:166791) has held as under:

"16. Further, this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma (supra) has held that if no reason has been assigned for cancelling the registration, such order cannot sustain despite appeal being dismissed on the ground of laches, and the doctrine of merger will have no application and set aside the orders impugned therein and remanded the matter for adjudicating the issue de novo.

17. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondents i.e. Chikki Costmetics Budhanpur (supra), M/s Arun Enterprises (supra) & M/s Yadav Steels (supra) has been held therein that that court below has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

18. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hongo India (P) Ltd. (supra) and the Karnataka High Court in the case of Director of Mines and Geology (supra) has held that delay i.e. beyond the period, cannot be condoned.

19. In the case in hand, the cancellation of registration order has been passed without application of mind as no reason has been assigned in the impugned order dated 08.08.2023. However, the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that if no reason has been given for cancelling the registration, doctrine of merger will not apply and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondents in the case at hand, are of no aid to them.

20. The present case is similar to one Surendra Bahadaur Singh (supra), Namo Narayan Singh (supra) & Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma (supra); wherein the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 107 of the GST Act. After considering the original order, set aside the same being without any reason and allowed the petitioner therein to file reply to the show cause notice and further directed the authority concerned to proceed de novo.

21. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as law down in the aforesaid judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner, the impugned orders cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the same are hereby set aside."

13. The record shows that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and same does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court as referred herein above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed.

10. The writ petition is allowed.

11. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority, who shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner mentioning the reason of the proposed cancellation of registration within a period of one week from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to submit its reply within 15 days after receipt of the notice and after submitting the reply within time, the adjudicating authority shall pass reasoned and speaking order, within a period of two weeks thereafter, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Order Date :- 15.7.2025