M/S Maitreyi Infrastructure Lko. Thru. Proprietor Mr. Sonu Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax U.P. Lko. And 2 Others
Held
The Court held that the discretionary jurisdiction of a writ petition cannot be exercised in favour of a petitioner who has been negligent. The inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, for which no reasons were provided by the petitioner, demonstrated such negligence. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the order dated January 16, 2021, which cancelled the petitioner firm's GST registration. The petitioner was granted liberty to apply for fresh GST registration in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of on this basis.
Facts
The petitioner, M/S Maitreyi Infrastructure Lko. Thru. Proprietor Mr. Sonu Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 16, 2021, which cancelled their GST registration. The petitioner failed to provide any justification for the significant delay in filing the writ petition. The High Court noted this inordinate delay as a key factor in its decision.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, given the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition? The petitioner argued for relief, implicitly seeking to overcome the delay. The respondent, the State of U.P. through the Additional Chief Secretary, State Tax, and two others, contended that the delay was inexcusable and barred the petitioner from equitable relief. The Court was to consider if the petitioner's negligence in delaying the filing of the petition warranted dismissal of the writ.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1502 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
The present writ petition relates to an order of cancellation of registration dated 16.01.2021. The petitioner has not been able to indicate the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing of the writ petition.
In light of the same, we are of the view that the discretionary jurisdiction of the writ petition cannot be exercised in favour of the writ petitioner as the writ petitioner has been negligent. In light of the same, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order dated 16.01.2021, wherein the order for cancellation of registration of the petitioner firm was passed.
The petitioner shall be at liberty to apply afresh GST registration in accordance with law.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. December 16, 2025 Anurag Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Punit Kumar Srivastava, Ishank Srivastava, Rakesh Srivastava, Shashank Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) M/S Maitreyi Infrastructure Lko. Thru. Proprietor Mr. Sonu Singh .....Petitioner(
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.