Disposed

M/S V.P. Constructions Lko. Thru. Proprietor Vijay Pal Prajapati and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 May 2024/98/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the validity of GST registration cancellation and subsequent appeal dismissal. The court quashed impugned orders for non-application of mind and lacking reasons, setting them aside to pass a fresh order after a proper hearing.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 09.02.2022 and 12.02.2024 are set aside. A fresh order is directed after considering the petitioner's reply.

M/S V.P. Constructions Lko. Thru. Proprietor Vijay… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34448

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 98 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S V.P. Constructions Lko. Thru. Proprietor Vijay Pal Prajapati And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. U.P. 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 Pankaj Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶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 09.02.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector 12, Lucknow (B) cancelling the registration of the petitioners' proprietorship concer M/s V.P. Construction, Lucknow. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of an order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal) State Tax, Judicial Block-3, Lucknow, dismissing the Defective Appeal No.1 of 2024 filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid cancellation order dated 9.02.2022, 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 09.02.2022 mentions that:-

¶8

"This has reference to your reply dated 17.07.2022 in response to show cause notice dated 07.07.2022.

¶9

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

¶10

The effective date of cancellation of your registration is 09.09.2022."

¶11

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 petitioner's reply dated 17.07.2022 but at the same time order states that the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the show cause notice. The contents of the petitioner's reply dated 17.07.2022 have also not been taken into

¶12

consideration while passing of the impugned order.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of . The orders dated 09.02.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector 12, Lucknow (B) and 12.02.2024 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 17.07.2022 given in response to the show cause notice dated 07.07.2022.

¶17

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.

¶18

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶19

Order Date :- 3.5.2024 -Amit K-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S V.P. Constructions Lko. Thru. Proprietor Vijay Pal Prajapati and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S V.P. Constructions Lko. Thru. Proprietor Vijay Pal Prajapati and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. U.P. 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

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thru Divisional Manager Vs Smt. Sirsa Devi and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Additional Commissioner Admn. Faizabad Mandal and Ors.

Mohd. Amir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Arun Saxena vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Vivek Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies, Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Anjani Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another