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

Held

The Court held that the impugned order was flawed due to being undated and lacking proper reasoning, which consumed the Court's time to ascertain the actual grounds for rejection. The Court noted that the petitioner claimed the order was served on 22.08.2026, and therefore, directed that the date of the order be treated as 22.08.2026. The Court advised the respondent no. 2 to be more careful in passing orders. Given the statutory remedy of appeal available against both the cancellation order and the impugned order, the Court did not adjudicate the factual disputes. Instead, it permitted the petitioner to approach the appellate forum within two weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court also stated that all facts would remain open to be contested before the appellate authority. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohd. Qamar, had his GST registration cancelled by an order dated 17.07.2026. He filed a writ petition, which was disposed of on 10.08.2026, allowing him to apply for revocation. The petitioner applied for revocation on 11.08.2026. Respondent no. 2 issued a notice on 14.08.2026, requiring the petitioner to appear on 17.08.2026 with original tax invoices, photographs, and electronic devices used for generating bills and e-way bills. The petitioner appeared and produced some documents but could not produce the electronic devices, stating they belonged to former employees. The impugned order, which rejected the revocation application, is undated and lacks proper reasoning, although it notes the petitioner's assurance to produce devices on 19.08.2026 and subsequent failure to do so, leading to an adverse inference.

Key Issues

1. Whether the undated and inadequately reasoned impugned order, rejecting the petitioner's application for revocation of GST registration cancellation, is legally sustainable? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was flawed due to being undated and lacking proper reasoning, making it difficult to ascertain the basis of the rejection. He also argued that the electronic devices requested were not in his possession as they belonged to former employees who had left his service, and he had produced other supporting documents. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued, through the impugned order, that an adverse inference was drawn due to the petitioner's failure to produce the requested electronic devices on the stipulated date (19.08.2026), despite an earlier assurance. The State relied on the fact that the petitioner had not fully complied with the directions issued for verification.