M/S S.K.Power Solutions Thru. Partner Mr.Shoeb Ahmad Khan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Tax And Reg. Lko And 2 Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1374 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 06.11.2025, passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner as being time barred, as a consequence, the order dated 25.12.2023, passed by the respondent No.3 has been affirmed.
The submission is that the registration of the firm of the petitioner was cancelled on 15.12.2022. Once the registration had been cancelled, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner subsequently on 21.12.2022 which could not be noticed by the petitioner. This led to passing of the impugned order dated 25.10.2025 which again was not served and was not in notice of the petitioner. However, later when the said order come to the notice of the petitioner then the petitioner preferred an appeal on 25.10.2025 which has been dismissed vide order dated 06.11.2025 on the grounds of being barred by limitation.
The pith and substance of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the cancellation of the registration, there was no Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S S.K.Power Solutions Thru. Partner Mr.Shoeb Ahmad Khan .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Tax And Reg. Lko And 2 others .....Respondent(s)
way for the petitioner to access the portal and the notice sent to the petitioner on the portal was meaningless as it was in the notice of the Department that the registration stood cancelled and in terms of Section 169 of the GST Act, 2017, the petitioner should have been served through an alternative mode which was not done. Thus, the proceedings, on the basis of the said notice dated 21.12.2022 which culminated in order dated 25.12.2023 is without opportunity of hearing and nonest.
It is only thereafter when it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the petitioner preferred an appeal which apparently was time barred and without having any option to raise such issue, the petitioner is before this Court.
Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-Revenue, on the basis of written instructions, has pointed out that and Anr; 2024:AHC:38820-DB and Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax and 2 others, 2022 SCC OnLine All 1088. 11. In view of the admitted facts where the petitioner could not get any opportunity of hearing, consequently, the impugned orders which are apparently behind the back of the petitioner amounts to denial of opportunity and is per-se, arbitrary and accordingly, the impugned orders dated 06.11.2025 and 25.12.2023 are set aside. The respondents shall be at liberty to pass fresh orders after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Costs are made easy. December 3, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
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.