Ankur Builders vs. State Of U.P. Thr.Sec.Revenue U.P. At Lucknow & 2 Others

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in an identical set of facts, this Court vide judgement & order dated 22.09.2022 has allowed Writ Tax No. 147 of 2022 (M/s Chandra Sain Vs. Union of India & 5 Others). Learned ACSC does not dispute the said fact. This Court in M/s Chandra Sain (supra) has held as under:- "

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that although no fault can be found with the appellate order dismissing the appeal as Aappellate Authority does not have the power to condone the delay in terms of the scheme of the Act, however, he argues that the order cancelling the registration is without application of mind; he draws my attention to the impugned order dated 13.02.2020, which does not disclose any application of mind. He, thus, argues that the quasi judicial order which has an adverse effect on the right of the petitioner to run business as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the same has been done without any application of mind which is neither the intent of the Act nor can it be held to be in compliance of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further argues that as the appeal has not been decided on merit, the doctrine of merger will have no application and it is only the order dated 13.02.2020 which affects the petitioner and as the same is devoid of any reasons, the same can be challenged before this Court as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and Ors. - (1998) 8 SCC 1. 7. He further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Om Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors.; Writ Tax No.100 of 2022 decided on 06.09.2022 wherein this Court had recorded that every administrative authority or a quasi judicial authority should necessarily indicate reasons as reasons are heart and soul of any judicial or administrative order.

In the present case from the perusal of the order dated 13.02.2020, clearly there is no reason ascribed to take such a harsh action of cancellation of registration. In view of the order being without any application of mind, the same does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such, the impugned order dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure - 2) is set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed.

It is, however, directed that the petitioner shall file reply to the show-cause notice within a period of three weeks from today. The Adjudicating Authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner, Lucknow shall proceed to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after considering whatever defence he may take.

As the order dated 13.02.2020 is set aside, the further action shall prevail in accordance with law as prescribed under Section 29 of the GST Act. " In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition is allowed in the same terms as in M/s Chandra Sain (supra). The impugned order dated 21.09.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3 are hereby quashed. It is directed that the petitioner shall file reply to the show-cause notice within a period of three weeks from today. The Adjudicating Authority shall proceed to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after considering whatever defence he may take. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Amit Mishra AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad