Mohd. Nazim vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 24.08.2026 is set aside. The primary reason for this decision is that the order, on its face, recorded absolutely no reasons for the rejection of the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration. The Court distinguished this case from a similar one (Mohd. Qamar Vs. State of U.P. and Another) where the writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to file an appeal, as that case had attached documents providing reasons. In the present case, there were no attached documents and no reasons were recorded in the order itself. The Court emphasized that an order determining civil rights must not only be speaking but also intelligible. The Court further noted that careless or reckless exercise of powers by statutory authorities leads to frivolous litigation and distress. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the respondent no. 2 (Assistant Commissioner) to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. The Court warned the respondent to be cautious and careful while passing such orders.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohd. Nazim, is challenging an order dated 24.08.2026 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax (SGST) Office, Moradabad. This order rejected the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of his GST registration. The rejection order, in its primary form, stated that the petitioner's reply was not satisfactory and directed him to produce various documents, including tax invoices, transport receipts, e-way bills, weighbridge slips, toll plaza payment receipts, bank statements, and photographs, along with the devices used to capture them and the computers used to generate bills and e-way bills, for verification on 17.08.2026. The impugned order, however, contained no reasons for rejection on its face. The Court noted that a similar case, Mohd. Qamar Vs. State of U.P. and Another, had its writ petition disposed of by allowing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal, based on reasons provided in attached documents. This was not permissible in the present case as no reasons were recorded and no documents were attached.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 24.08.2026, which rejected the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration, is legally sustainable when it fails to record any reasons for rejection on its face, as required by law. The petitioner's contention is that the impugned order is fundamentally flawed because it is a non-speaking order, failing to provide any justification for the rejection of his application for revocation of GST registration. He argues that any order affecting civil rights must be intelligible and must provide reasons. The petitioner relies on the principle that statutory authorities must exercise their powers judiciously and not carelessly, as such actions lead to unnecessary litigation and distress. The respondent's contention is not recorded in the judgment.