Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube
gst-panacea-logo
Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube

Jai Bahadur Singh Vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Dept. Of Commercial

Case Title

Jai Bahadur Singh Vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Dept. Of Commercial

Court

Allahabad High Court

Honorable Judges

Justice Vivek Chaudhary

Citation

2023 (01) GSTPanacea 312 HC Allahabad

WRIT TAX No. – 20 of 2023

Judgement Date

24-January-2023

The present petition challenges the order dated December 22, 2022, issued by the respondent no.1, which dismissed Appeal No.103 of 2022 under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration. Additionally, the order directed the revocation of the petitioner’s GST registration.

The petitioner is the sole proprietor of a firm engaged in civil work contracts and had been registered under the GST Act. The issue began when the petitioner’s counsel failed to file the GST return, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice on August 19, 2019. This notice required the petitioner to respond within seven working days.

The petitioner contends that he did not receive the show cause notice from the respondent and, therefore, could not submit the required reply within the stipulated time. As a result, an order was passed on September 16, 2019, canceling the petitioner’s registration. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal against this cancellation, but it was dismissed by the appellate authority due to a delay in filing the appeal.

The petitioner has filed a petition challenging the order dated December 22, 2022, issued by respondent no.1, which dismissed Appeal No.103 of 2022 under the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and directed the revocation of the petitioner’s GST registration. The petitioner, a sole proprietor engaged in civil work contracts, had their GST registration canceled due to the non-filing of a GST return. A show-cause notice dated August 19, 2019, was issued, requiring the petitioner to respond within seven working days. The petitioner claims that he never received the show-cause notice and thus could not reply in time, leading to the cancellation of his registration on September 16, 2019.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal against this cancellation, which was dismissed due to a delay in filing. The petitioner’s counsel argues that since the petitioner was not heard before the order dated September 16, 2019, he is entitled to the same relief granted by the court in a similar case, Writ Tax No.145 of 2022 (Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India and others) dated September 26, 2022. In that judgment, the court ruled that the cancellation of registration without assigning any specific reasons and solely based on the non-submission of a reply to the show-cause notice was not justified. Therefore, the petitioner believes he should benefit from this precedent, asserting that the failure to reply to the show-cause notice should not be sufficient grounds for canceling GST registration.

The present petition challenges the order dated December 22, 2022, issued by Respondent No. 1, which dismissed Appeal No. 103 of 2022 under the U.P. Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act, 2017. This appeal was against the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration. The petitioner, a sole proprietor engaged in civil work contracting, was initially registered under the GST Act but failed to file the GST return. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued on August 19, 2019, requiring a reply within seven working days. The petitioner claims not to have received this notice and, as a result, did not respond within the stipulated time, leading to the cancellation of the registration on September 16, 2019.

The petitioner appealed against the cancellation, but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal due to delay. The petitioner’s counsel argues that the petitioner was not heard before the order dated September 16, 2019, was passed, and therefore, the petitioner should benefit from the precedent set in Writ Tax No. 145 of 2022 (Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow vs. Union of India and others), decided on September 26, 2022. In this case, the court found that the order cancelling registration lacked any stated reason, merely noting the absence of a reply to the show cause notice, which alone is insufficient grounds for cancellation.

The petitioner’s counsel further references another judgment (Writ Tax No. 147 of 2022, M/S Chandrasen vs. Union of India and others), wherein the court held that orders lacking reason and not reflecting application of mind fail to meet the scrutiny required under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the same principle should apply, arguing that the cancellation order is a non-speaking order and should be subject to judicial review.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law:

Company Policy

GET STARTED​

IMPORTANT LINKS

Weekly Newsletter