M/S Kundan Steel Works vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others

Held

The Court held that it would not enter into the merits of the allegations of fraudulent registration. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to file a copy of the order before respondent no. 6, the Additional Commissioner (Grade-I), DGT Department, GST Office, Gorakhpur. Respondent no. 6 was directed to deal with and decide the petitioner's applications dated 29.4.2026 and 25.5.2026 strictly in accordance with law. This decision was to be made after hearing all necessary parties, including respondent no. 5, and was to be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of compliance by the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that allegations of fraudulent registration and related applications should first be adjudicated by the designated GST authorities, with the High Court intervening only to ensure timely and lawful consideration.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Kundan Steel Works, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner alleged that respondent no. 5 obtained registration under the U.P. GST Act, 2017, fraudulently by registering a proprietary firm in his name. The petitioner sought a direction from the Court to address this issue. The Court, without entering into the merits of the case, permitted the impleadment of the Additional Commissioner (Grade-I), DGT Department, GST Office, Gorakhpur, as respondent no. 6. The Court directed that upon the petitioner filing a copy of the order, respondent no. 6 should proceed to decide the petitioner's applications dated 29.4.2026 and 25.5.2026 strictly in accordance with law, after hearing all necessary parties, including respondent no. 5, expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should intervene in a matter involving alleged fraudulent registration under the U.P. GST Act, 2017, by directing the concerned GST authority to decide the petitioner's applications. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that respondent no. 5 obtained registration fraudulently. They sought the Court's intervention to ensure their applications, which presumably address this fraudulent registration, are considered by the GST authorities. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or state respondents. However, the Court's direction to the Additional Commissioner implies that the revenue authority is the appropriate forum to address such grievances.