Wings Security Services Through Proprietor Surender Kumar Arora vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Wings Security Services, challenged an order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the respondent, the State of U.P. and another authority, cancelling its GST registration. The petitioner contended that a show cause notice dated 30.01.2023 was issued, but due to unawareness, no response was filed. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. The respondent's counsel supported the impugned order. The Court noted that the impugned order itself contained contradictory statements, indicating that a reply dated 08.02.2023 was examined, yet the cancellation was based on 'no response received'. This inconsistency was highlighted as a clear reflection of non-application of mind by the issuing authority.
Held
The Court held that the order dated 24.02.2023 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was passed without proper application of mind. This conclusion was primarily based on the contradictory statements within the order itself. While the order mentioned examining a reply dated 08.02.2023, it simultaneously cited 'no response received' as the reason for cancellation. This internal inconsistency demonstrated a failure by the authority to properly consider the facts and follow due process. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The petitioner was granted liberty to file its response to the show cause notice dated 30.01.2023 within 15 days. Upon filing the response, the respondent No.2 was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter expeditiously. No other aspects of the matter were decided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, dated 24.02.2023, was passed without due application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the opportunity of hearing, as contemplated under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was passed without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing. They claimed they were unaware of the show cause notice dated 30.01.2023 and thus could not file a response. The subsequent order, therefore, was liable to be quashed. Respondent's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel supported the impugned order, implying that the cancellation was justified and procedural norms were followed.
Sections Cited
U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53133-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 180 of 2025 Petitioner :- Wings Security Services through Proprietor Surender Kumar Arora Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishi Tandon Counsel for Respondent :- Nimai Dass (A.C.S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the respondents cancelling the petitioner's registration under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Submissions have been made that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner 30.01.2023, however, as the petitioner was unaware of the notice issued in this regard, it could not file response to the said notice and without providing any opportunity of hearing, the order impugned has been passed and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned Standing Counsel supported the order impugned.
We have considered the submissions and have perused the material available on record.
A bare perusal of order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure-1 to the petition) reveals that the same has been passed without any application of mind. Admittedly, no response to the show cause notice was given by the petitioner, however, the order indicates that reply dated 08.02.2023 was filed which was examined and for the reason 'no response received', the registration has been cancelled.
The very fact that though no response was given by the petitioner to indicate that the response was received and then to cancel the registration on non-receipt of any response clearly reflects non application of mind by the officer for passing the order impugned.
In view of the above, without going into the other aspects of the matter as raised, we deem it appropriate and, therefore, set aside the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the respondent no.2. 8. The petitioner may file its response to the show cause notice dated 30.01.2023 within a period of 15 days, on filing of the said reply, the respondent No.2 after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, would decide the same with expedition.
The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 RK/SL (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) RAJESH KUMAR 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.