M/S Raghvendra Singh Thru. Its Proprietor Mr. Raghvendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.State Tax Lko. And 3 Others

Held

The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the order dated 01.06.2021 (cancellation of GST registration) and the appellate order dated 27.12.2022. The Court reasoned that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the order passed in Writ Tax No. 145 of 2022. The ratio decidendi is that where a petitioner demonstrates a valid reason for non-compliance (like non-receipt of notice) and relies on a precedent granting similar relief, the High Court can intervene to ensure fairness. The operative direction is that the petitioner is permitted to appear before the respondent within three weeks with a reply to the show cause notice and certified copies of the present judgment and the judgment in Writ Tax No. 145 of 2022. Upon such appearance, the respondents shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Raghvendra Singh, a proprietorship concern engaged in vehicle towing services, challenges the cancellation of its GST registration on 01.06.2021 and the subsequent dismissal of its appeal by the appellate authority on 27.12.2022. The petitioner claims it did not receive the show cause notice dated 26.03.2021, issued due to non-filing of GST returns, allegedly because of the COVID pandemic. Consequently, it could not submit a reply within the stipulated seven working days. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay. The petitioner relies on a previous High Court order in Writ Tax No. 145 of 2022 (Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others) dated 26.09.2022, seeking similar relief.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration and dismissal of appeal were justified, considering the petitioner's claim of non-receipt of the show cause notice and reliance on a previous High Court order. (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that it is entitled to the benefit of the order passed by this Court in Writ Tax No. 145 of 2022, which granted relief in similar circumstances. Therefore, the present petitioner should also receive the same relief. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent State. However, the context implies the State's action was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns and respond to the show cause notice, leading to the cancellation and dismissal of appeal.