Consummate Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Heard Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.5.2022 passed by respondent no. 2, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the orders of cancellation of the registration of the petitioner have been upheld by holding that the appeal to be barred by the limitation, losing sight of the fact that the order of cancellation of registration was dated 9.8.2021, as is available even today on the G.S.T. portal. He has further submitted that no order with any other date canceling the registration of the petitioner is available on the G.S.T. portal. Furthermore, no date of hearing has been fixed by the show cause notice issued for cancellation of registration, and the registration has been canceled by an ex-parte order passed on 24.2.2019 in violation of principles of natural justice.

Attention has been drawn towards the ‘show cause notice’ dated 9.4.2019, and further attention has been drawn towards the order for cancellation of the registration, which in the first para indicates that the reply to the show cause notice has been received on 24.1.2019, whereas in subsequent paragraphs it has been indicated that no reply to the show cause notice has been submitted. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure no. 7, which is the judgment and order dated 28.7.2022 in re: Writ Tax No. 1004 of 2022 (M/S. Singh Group vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts and circumstances, as well as the legal position, are identical with the present case; therefore, in light of the aforesaid judgment and order passed in re: M/S. Singh Group (supra), the instant writ petition may be allowed. For the convenience, the order dated 28.7.2022 in re: M/S. Singh Group (supra) is being reproduced as follows:

“In the case of M/S. Singh Group, the petitioner had also challenged the order canceling its GST registration. The Court had taken into account the fact that no hearing date was fixed by the show cause notice issued for cancellation of registration, and the cancellation was done by an ex-parte order without following due process, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Court had noted discrepancies in the show cause notice and the cancellation order, much like the present case where contradictory statements were found regarding the submission of the reply to the show cause notice. The Court had observed that such procedural lapses and contradictions highlight the non-application of mind by the authorities and the violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court had quashed the order of cancellation of registration and directed the authorities to restore the registration and grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

In the light of the above judgment and order passed in M/S. Singh Group, it is evident that the present case stands on similar grounds with procedural irregularities and violations of natural justice principles. Therefore, considering the identical nature of both cases and the legal precedents set forth, it is only just and fair that the instant writ petition be allowed. The cancellation order dated 9.8.2021 is quashed, and the respondent authorities are directed to restore the petitioner’s GST registration forthwith. Furthermore, the respondent authorities are directed to provide the petitioner with a proper opportunity of hearing before proceeding with any cancellation, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice and due process of law.”

This detailed reproduction and reference to the M/S. Singh Group judgment substantiate the petitioner’s case, drawing a parallel to demonstrate the commonality in legal and factual matrices, thereby underscoring the merit in the petitioner’s plea for the restoration of GST registration and the rectification of procedural lapses by the respondent authorities.

Download PDF:

For reference visit:

Read another case law:

GST Case Law: