M/S Pratishtha Banquet Hall vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Pratishtha Banquet Hall, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated 10.12.2021 and 22.8.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Agra. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on 03.06.2021, after which no business was conducted. A show cause notice was allegedly uploaded on the GST portal, leading to the impugned order passed under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that once registration is cancelled, they are not obligated to check the GST portal, and service of any notice must be through alternative means.
Held
The Court held that once a GST registration is cancelled, the assessee is not obligated to check the GST portal for any subsequent notices. The Court found that the mode of service of any show cause notice must be through alternative means to the petitioner. The Court agreed with the principle enunciated in M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. and others. Consequently, the Court found a violation of the principle of natural justice. The impugned orders dated 10.12.2021 and 22.8.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Agra, were quashed and set aside. The department was granted liberty to issue a proper notice to the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders dated 10.12.2021 and 22.8.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Agra, are valid when the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled prior to the issuance of the show cause notice and the petitioner was not carrying out any business. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that after the cancellation of their GST registration on 03.06.2021, they were not obligated to check the GST portal for any notices. They contended that the mode of service of any show cause notice must be through alternative means to the petitioner. The petitioner relied on the principle enunciated by a coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:23697-DB. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (State of Uttar Pradesh and Another).
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 3882 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2021 and 22.8.2022 passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-17, Agra under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
Factual matrix in the matter is that the petitioner's registration under the Act was cancelled on 03.06.2021. Subsequent to the same, no business was carried out by the petitioner. It appears that a show cause notice was uploaded on the GST portal and subsequent to the same, the order impugned was passed under Section 74 of the Act.
Once the registration has been cancelled, the petitioner is not obligated to check GST portal. The mode of service of any show cause notice has to be by way of alternative means to the petitioner.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies upon an order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:23697-DB. We are essentially in agreement with the said principle enunciated by the coordinate Bench in the said order.
We find that there has been violation of the principle of natural justice, and accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.12.2021 and 22.8.2022 passed by the respondent No.3 is quashed and set aside. The department shall be at liberty to issue a proper notice to the petitioner and act in accordance with law.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. September 15, 2025 Md Faisal Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Niraj Kumar Singh, Vishakha Kshatriya Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) M/S Pratishtha Banquet Hall .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another .....Respondent(s) MOHD FAISAL 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.