M/S Implex Infrastructure PVT LTD And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns. The appeal against this cancellation was dismissed on limitation grounds. The petitioner argued that the cancellation order and the dismissal of appeal violated principles of natural justice and constitutional rights.
Held
The Court held that the show cause notice was improper as it lacked the proper officer's details, and the cancellation order was passed without proper notice or opportunity of hearing. The dismissal of the appeal on limitation did not cure the defect in the original order.
Key Issues
Whether the GST registration cancellation order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and constitutional rights, and if the dismissal of appeal on limitation affects the validity of the original order.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 1915 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
Heard Shri Nishant Mishra, along with Shri Prem Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents.
The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 31.03.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 as well as the impugned order dated 16.05.2023 passed by the respondent no. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of real estate. He submits that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.04.2023 for cancellation of registration on account of failure to furnish the returns for a continuous period of six months and thereafter vide ex- parte order dated 16.05.2023, the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that previous returns have not been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order in appeal before respondent no. 2, which has been dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 31.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in M/s M Y Ent Bhatta Vs. State of U.P. & Another [Writ Tax No. 546/2025, decided on 13.05.2025] as well as the judgements of this Court in Surya Associates Vs. Union of India [(2024) 25 Centax 190 (All.)] and One Place Infrastructure Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nishant Mishra, Parinita Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Implex Infrastructure Pvt Ltd And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
Vs. State of U.P. [(2025) Centax 372 (All.)].
Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The writ petition is allowed.
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 21 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. October 7, 2025 Amit Mishra (Piyush Agrawal,J.) AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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.