Ansal Hi-Tech Town Ships Limited vs State of Uttar Pradesh

The case involves a writ petition brought forth under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contests two orders: one dated November 15, 2022, which canceled their registration, and another dated December 30, 2023, issued in appeal under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the Act”).

During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the cancellation of registration was arbitrary, pointing out inconsistencies in the order. Specifically, they highlighted that while the order acknowledged receipt of the petitioner’s reply on June 7, 2022, it also stated that no such reply had been submitted. This contradiction suggested a lack of careful consideration in the decision-making process. The petitioner’s counsel referenced a prior Division Bench judgment (Writ Tax No.172 of 2023 titled Surendra Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and others) where similar concerns were raised about the absence of reasoned judgment in an order affecting the petitioner’s rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and the mandate of Article 14.

The petitioner’s counsel further argued that the appellate order failed to address the merits of the case, emphasizing that the doctrine of merger should not apply as the appeal was dismissed without due consideration. They contended that the cancellation of registration, being a quasi-judicial decision, must be supported by adequate reasoning, which was lacking in the impugned order.

In response, Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, likely presented counterarguments defending the validity of the orders and emphasizing procedural regularity.

Overall, the petitioner’s counsel sought relief from the court, asserting that the cancellation of registration was unjustified due to procedural errors and lack of reasoned judgment, thereby violating their constitutional rights.

The petitioner in this case challenges an order dated 07.01.2023, which canceled their registration without providing any reasons for such a drastic action. The petitioner argues that the absence of reasons violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner relies on legal precedents, such as the Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks case, which emphasizes the importance of reasons in administrative or judicial orders. Additionally, the petitioner cites the Om Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. case, where the court stressed the necessity of providing reasons as they form the essence of any judicial or administrative decision.

Furthermore, the petitioner refers to the case of M/s Namo Narayan Singh v. State of U.P., which underscores the significance of providing reasons in judicial proceedings. Drawing parallels with the case of Surendra Bahadur Singh, where an order was set aside due to lack of reasoning, the petitioner argues that their case warrants similar treatment.

Based on the arguments presented and the legal precedents cited, the court agrees that the orders in question lack justification and are therefore liable to be set aside. Consequently, both the original order dated November 15, 2022, and the appellate order dated December 30, 2023, are quashed. The petitioner is directed to file a reply to the show-cause notice within three weeks, and the adjudicating authority is instructed to conduct fresh proceedings, providing the petitioner with an opportunity to present their defense.

Download Pdf:
Ansal Hi-Tech Town Ships Limited

For Reference Visit:
Allahabad High Court

Read Another Case law:
GST Case Law