M.R. Consultants And Constructions, Lko. Thru. Partner Dinesh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And 4 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M.R. Consultants and Constructions, challenged the cancellation of its GST registration by an order dated 05.01.2019 and the dismissal of its appeal by an order dated 14.01.2023. The petitioner claims it did not receive the show cause notice dated 05.02.2018, preventing it from filing a reply. The cancellation order itself contained contradictory statements regarding the submission of a reply. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was non-speaking and passed without proper application of mind.
Held
The Court held that the order dated 05.01.2019 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was bad in law. The reasoning was that the order was non-speaking, contradictory, and passed without proper application of mind, violating principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the non-submission of a reply to a show cause notice cannot be the sole ground for cancellation. Following the precedent set in Writ Tax No.145 of 2022 (Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India and others), the Court found the petitioner entitled to relief. The order dated 05.01.2019 and the appellate order dated 14.01.2023 were set aside. The petitioner was permitted to appear before the respondent within three weeks with a reply to the show cause notice and copies of the High Court's order and the Technosum India judgment. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law upon the petitioner's appearance.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 05.01.2019 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration is bad in law for being non-speaking and passed without proper application of mind, contrary to principles of natural justice, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the order is self-contradictory and that non-submission of a reply to a show cause notice cannot be the sole ground for cancellation. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Writ Tax No.145 of 2022 (Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India and others). The respondent's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 14 of the Constitution of India
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 42 of 2023 Petitioner :- M.R. Consultants And Constructions, Lko. Thru. Partner Dinesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganesh Nath Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dipak Seth Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the description of respondents during course of the day. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dipak Seth, learned counsel for respondent no.2 to 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.01.2019 whereby GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled and the order dated 14.01.2023, whereby the Appeal No.D-23 of 2023, U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 filed 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 Nagar, Lucknow vs Union of India and others) had held that the order of cancellation of registration or any other order passed either on administrative or on judicial side is without any reason and prima facie, without application of mind, the same does not stand the test of scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Thus, following the said judgment rendered in the case of M/s Chandrasen (Supra), the writ petition deserves to be allowed." Order Date :- 22.2.2023 Arti/- [Vivek Chaudhary,J.] ARTI MAURYA 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.