Pramod Contractor Common Service Centre Sitapur Thru. Its Proprietor Pramod Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Secy. Goods And Service Tax Deptt. Lko. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Pramod Contractor Common Service Centre, through its proprietor Pramod Kumar Singh, challenged the cancellation of its registration under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax, 2017. The petitioner contended that it had no knowledge of the notice prior to the cancellation. When questioned by the Court about specific pleadings regarding non-service of the notice, the petitioner's counsel admitted that there were no such specific averments. The petitioner had obtained a copy of the notice subsequently from the respondent's office. The Court noted the lack of specific pleadings concerning the service of the notice.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not a fit case for interference due to the absence of specific pleadings from the petitioner regarding the non-service of the notice in terms of Section 169 of the U.P. Goods and Services Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel admitted to this lack of specific pleading. While the petitioner claimed no knowledge of the notice and obtained a copy later, the Court emphasized the procedural requirement of demonstrating non-service through proper pleadings. The Court did not decide on the merits of the cancellation itself but rather on the procedural deficiency in the petition. The ratio decidendi is that a challenge to a tax authority's action based on non-service of notice requires specific pleadings to that effect. The Court did not grant the relief sought but left open the option for the petitioner to file a fresh petition with requisite pleadings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-receipt of notice, considering the absence of specific pleadings regarding non-service in accordance with Section 169 of the U.P. Goods and Services Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that they had no knowledge of the notice prior to the cancellation and obtained a copy later. The revenue did not present arguments on this point as the Court identified a deficiency in the petitioner's pleadings. The Court's primary concern was the lack of specific averments in the petition regarding the proper service of the notice as mandated by Section 169 of the Act.