M/S Mishra Agencies Thru. Proprietor Meena Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 1347 of 2025

¶3

M/S Mishra Agencies Thru. Proprietor Meena Mishra

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

Registration Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kushwaha, Harshita Gautam, Kanchan Maurya Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 6

¶9

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶11

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.04.2024 whereby recovery was made against the petitioner under Section 73 of GST Act, 2017 as well as the appellate order dated 18.02.2025, whereby the appeal was dismissed as being beyond limitation.

¶12

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that prior to passing of the order, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner.

¶13

It is urged that even though the appellate authority does not have the power to condone the delay but the fact remains that at the stage of inception, the petitioner could not furnish his reply and the order was patently exparte. Apparently, it is a case where the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

¶14

Learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has submitted that the opportunity was granted which was not availed by the petitioner hence, it cannot be said that the order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing.

¶15

WTAX No. 1347 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from a perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the issue involved in the instant petition, similarly has been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Chandra Sain Vs Union of India and Ors. , passed in Writ Tax no.147 of 2022 wherein coordinate Bench after noticing the order of cancellation of registration in para-5 to 7 has held as under:

¶18

''5. The petitioner could not prefer an appeal, which is prescribed under the Act, on account of Covid - 19 situation and the fact that the petitioner fell ill for which medical certificates were granted, as such, the petitioner preferred a delay condonation application alongwith the appeal. The Appellate Authority was of the view that in view of the Bar created under Section 107(4) of the GST Act, the delay cannot be condoned, as such, he proceeded to dismiss the appeal holding that no power of condonation of delay exists in the statutory scheme of Section 107 of GST Act.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that although no fault can be found with the appellate order dismissing the appeal as Appellate Authority does not have the power to condone the delay in terms of the scheme of the Act, however, he argues that the order cancelling the registration is without application of mind; he draws my attention to the impugned order dated 13.02.2020, which does not disclose any application of mind. He, thus, argues that the quasi judicial order which has an adverse effect on the right of the petitioner to run business as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the same has been done without any application of mind which is neither the intent of the Act nor can it be held to be in compliance of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further argues that as the appeal has not been decided on merit, the doctrine of merger will have no application and it is only the order dated 13.02.2020 which affects the petitioner and as the same is devoid of any reasons, the same can be challenged before this Court as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶20

WTAX No. 1347 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and Ors. - (1998) 8 SCC 1.

¶23

He further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Om Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors.; Writ Tax No.100 of 2022 decided on 06.09.2022 wherein this Court had recorded that every administrative authority or a quasi judicial authority should necessarily indicate reasons as reasons are heart and soul of any judicial or administrative order."

¶24

In view of the order being without any application of mind, the same does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such, the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 is set aside.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 25.04.2024 as well as the order dated 18.02.2025 are quashed and are set aside.

¶26

It is made clear that the learned counsel for the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- before the respondent No.4 along with its reply to show cause notice within a period of three week from today. However, if the compliance is made then the respondent No.4 shall after affording an opportunity to the parties shall pass fresh order as expeditiously as possible. In case if the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order.

¶27

The present petition stands allowed in above terms.

¶28

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶29

December 10, 2025

¶30

Rakesh/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Mishra Agencies Thru. Proprietor Meena Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mishra Agencies Thru. Proprietor Meena Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Iftikhar Fatima Vs U.P. Waqf Tribunal Lucknow, through its Registrar and 3 Others

Smt. Rajlakshmi Singh Vs Sushila Singh and Anr.

M/S S.S. Enterprises Lko. Thru. Its Partner Vimal Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Shrikant Dwivedi Vs Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court Ambedkar Nagar

Rajendra Prasad and 2 Ors. Vs District Judge Barabanki and 2 Ors.

Jitendra Pratap Singh S/O Late Shitla Singh Vs Commissioner Faizabad Mandal Faizabad and Anr.