M/S Kirti Steel Solution Thru. Proprietor Mr. Vivek Singh vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance,New Delhi And 4 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Kirti Steel Solution, through its Proprietor Mr. Vivek Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.10.2024 that cancelled its GST registration. The respondents, including the Union of India, raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that the order of cancellation was passed without proper reasoning. The Court considered its own previous judgment in M/s Chandra Sain and a Supreme Court judgment in Whirlpool Corporation.
Held
The Court rejected the preliminary objection regarding the alternative remedy. It held that an order which is bereft of reasoning is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Citing its own judgment in M/s Chandra Sain and the Supreme Court's decision in Whirlpool Corporation, the Court found the impugned order dated 18.10.2024 to be unsustainable due to the complete absence of reasoning. Consequently, the order was quashed. The matter was remanded back to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act? The petitioner argued that the writ petition is maintainable because the impugned order is fundamentally flawed and lacks reasoning, thus violating constitutional principles. The respondents contended that the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act must be exhausted before approaching the High Court. 2. Whether the order cancelling the GST registration, being bereft of reasoning, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? The petitioner argued that an order lacking any reasoning is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The respondents did not record any specific argument on this point, but their preliminary objection implicitly suggests that the procedural correctness of the order should be challenged through the appellate mechanism.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15220 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 197 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Kirti Steel Solution Thru. Proprietor Mr. Vivek Singh Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance,New Delhi And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishank Srivastava,Punit Kumar Srivastava,Rakesh Srivastava,Shashank Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Dipak Seth Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.1/Union of India and Shri Amit Harsh, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order of cancellation of registration dated 18.10.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 107 of GST Act, as such, present petition cannot be entertained.
The question of alternative remedy as well as the manner of passing the order, as is also evident in the present case, was considered by this Court in the case of M/s Chandra Sain, Sarda Nagar, Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor v. U.O.I & Ors. (Writ Tax No.147 of 2022) decided on 22.09.2022 wherein this Court had held that any order which is bereft of reasoning is violative of Art. 14 of Constitution and this Court had also considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai; (1998) 8 SCC 1. 5. Following the said judgment, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents merits rejection and is rejected.
Finding the impugned order dated 18.10.2024 to be bereft of any reasoning, the same cannot be sustained as being violative of Art. 14 of Constitution, and is quashed.
Matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Present petition stands allowed in above terms. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 nishant NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
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.