M/S Nitish Motor Works Lko. Thru. Proprietor Ram Kishore Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Finance Lko. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Nitish Motor Works Lko., challenged the cancellation of its GST registration by respondent no. 3 on 20.01.2022 and the subsequent dismissal of its appeal by the appellate authority on 31.01.2023. The petitioner claims it did not receive the show cause notice dated 10.01.2022, preventing it from filing a reply within the stipulated seven working days. The cancellation order was passed ex-parte. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority solely on the ground of delay. The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was contradictory, stating both that a reply was submitted and that it was not.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the order dated 20.01.2022 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration and the appellate order dated 31.01.2023 dismissing the appeal were unsustainable. The Court relied on its previous judgment in Writ Tax No. 145 of 2022 (Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India and others), which established that an order cancelling registration without assigning reasons and solely on the ground of non-submission of a reply to the show cause notice is non-speaking, lacks application of mind, and is liable to be set aside. The reasoning was that the non-submission of a reply cannot, by itself, be a valid ground for cancellation. The Court directed that the impugned orders be set aside and permitted the petitioner 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 Pvt. Ltd. judgment. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the petitioner's submissions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 20.01.2022 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration is liable to be set aside for being non-speaking and passed without proper application of mind, particularly when the petitioner claims non-receipt of the show cause notice? (Question of law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the order dated 20.01.2022 is self-contradictory. It further argued that it was not heard before the order was passed and that the cancellation of registration solely on the ground of non-submission of a reply to the show cause notice is unsustainable. The petitioner relied on the High Court's judgment in Writ Tax No. 145 of 2022 (Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India and others) dated 26.09.2022, which held that an order cancelling registration without assigning reasons and solely on the basis of non-submission of reply is bad in law and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Respondent's arguments: The respondent (State of U.P.) did not present any arguments as recorded in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 14 of the Constitution of India (as referenced in the cited judgment)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 41 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Nitish Motor Works Lko. Thru. Proprietor Ram Kishore Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Finance Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anit Vishal Srivastav,Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. not given. The 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,
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.