M/S Anshul Advertising Agency, Lko. Thru. Proprietor Mr. Mritunjay Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Secy. Ministry Finance, New Delhi And 5 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Anshul Advertising Agency, challenges two orders: one dated June 24, 2022, cancelling its GST registration, and another dated November 26, 2022, dismissing its appeal against the cancellation. The petitioner is a sole proprietorship engaged in advertising. A show cause notice was issued on May 30, 2022, requiring a reply within seven working days. The petitioner claims it did not receive the show cause notice, preventing it from filing a timely reply, which led to the cancellation of its registration. The appeal against this cancellation was dismissed by the appellate authority solely on the ground of delay.
Held
The Court allowed the petition, setting aside both the order dated June 24, 2022, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, and the appellate order dated November 26, 2022, which dismissed the appeal. The Court followed its previous decision in Writ Tax No. 145 of 2022 (Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India and others), which held that an order of cancellation of registration passed solely on the ground of non-submission of a reply to the show cause notice, without assigning any other reason or applying its mind, does not stand the test of scrutiny. The Court reasoned that the cancellation order was non-speaking and lacked proper application of mind. The ratio decidendi is that orders cancelling GST registration must be reasoned and not based solely on procedural defaults without considering the merits. The petitioner is permitted to appear before the respondent with a reply to the show cause notice and the court's order within three weeks, after which the respondent shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration dated June 24, 2022, is liable to be set aside for being non-speaking and passed without proper application of mind, as argued by the petitioner, relying on the principle laid down in Writ Tax No. 145 of 2022 (Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India and others)? 2. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal on the sole ground of delay, without considering the merits of the cancellation order, is sustainable in law? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the order dated June 24, 2022, is non-speaking and was passed without hearing the petitioner, relying on the judgment in Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner argues that the non-submission of a reply to the show cause notice cannot be the sole ground for cancellation. The petitioner also argues that the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal solely on delay without addressing the validity of the cancellation order. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent revenue.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 55 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Anshul Advertising Agency, Lko. Thru. Proprietor Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Finance, New Delhi And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C. Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.6.2022, whereby registration of the petitioner is cancelled and the order dated 26.11.2022, whereby the Appeal No.D-94 non-submission of reply to the show cause cannot be a ground
for cancellation of the registration. The relevant Paragraphs 9 and 10, of the judgment in Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow (Supra), read as under:- "
The Counsel for the petitioner argues that the appeal has been dismissed as being beyond limitation as such the doctrine of merger would not apply and the petitioner is fair entitled to seek judicial review of the order dated 03.01.2022 on the ground that the same is non speaking order. This Court while deciding Writ Tax No.147 of 2022 (M/S Chandrasen, Sarda M/s Chandrasen (Supra), the writ petition deserves to be allowed." [Vivek Chaudhary,J.] Order Date :- 1.3.2023 Sachin SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench SACHIN MEHROTRA 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.