Allowed

M/S Arya Cine Entertainment Lucknow Thru. Proprietor Rahul Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2024/72/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration and dismissal of an appeal based on delay. The court held the cancellation order was illegal due to apparent non-application of mind and quashed proceedings due to lack of reasons.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 23.03.2023 and 13.02.2024 set aside; Assistant Commissioner directed to pass fresh order considering petitioner's reply.

M/S Arya Cine Entertainment Lucknow Thru… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29246

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 72 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Arya Cine Entertainment Lucknow Thru. Proprietor Rahul Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankit Pande Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ankit Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Standing Counsel.

¶6

By means of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector 12, Lucknow (B) cancelling the registration of the petitioner's proprietorship concer M/s Arya Cine Entertainment, Lucknow. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of an order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal) State Tax, Judicial Block-3, Lucknow, dismissing the defective appeal no. 13 of 2024 filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid cancellation order dated 23.03.2023, only on the ground that the appeal had been filed belatedly.

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cancellation order dated 23.03.2023 mentions that:- " This has reference to your reply dated 17.03.2023 in response to show cause notice dated 04/03/2023.

¶8

Whereas no reply to notice to show cause has been submitted;

¶9

The effective date of cancellation of your registration is 23/03/2023."

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid contents of the cancellation order indicate a total non application of mind by the authority concerned while cancelling the G.S.T registration of the petitioner as on the one hand the order states that it was being passed with reference to the

¶11

petitioner's reply dated 17.03.2023 but at the same time order states that the petitioner had not submitted any reply to the show cause notice. The contents of the petitioner's reply dated 17.03.2023 have also not been taken into consideration while passing of the impugned order.

¶12

Such an unreasoned order cannot be sustained in law as no judicial order can be passed without giving sufficient reasons for passing of the order.

¶13

The appeal filed against the aforesaid order has been dismissed on the ground of limitation only.

¶14

Bar of limitation may bar the remedy of appeal but it does not bar the petitioner's right to seek his constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the impugned order affects valuable rights of the petitioner and the same has been passed without assigning any reason.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector 12, Lucknow (B) and 13.02.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal) State Tax, Judicial Block-3, Lucknow are hereby set aside and the learned Assistant Commissioner, Lucknow Sector 12, is directed to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the submissions made by the petitioner in the reply dated 17.03.2023 given in response to the show cause notice dated 04.03.2023.

¶16

The Respondent No.4 shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to present his case and after taking consideration the pleas taken by the petitioner, if any.

¶17

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 10.4.2024 Preeti.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Arya Cine Entertainment Lucknow Thru. Proprietor Rahul Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Arya Cine Entertainment Lucknow Thru. Proprietor Rahul Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Savita Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Dr. Vinay Kumar Pandey @ Vinnu Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sonu Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 7 Others

Pradeep Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sukhbir Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another