M/S S.K.Power Solutions Thru. Partner Mr.Shoeb Ahmad Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Tax and Reg. Lko and 2 Others

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 06.11.2025, passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner as being time barred, as a consequence, the order dated 25.12.2023, passed by the respondent No.3 has been affirmed.

¶14

The submission is that the registration of the firm of the petitioner was cancelled on 15.12.2022. Once the registration had been cancelled, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner subsequently on 21.12.2022 which could not be noticed by the petitioner. This led to passing of the impugned order dated 25.10.2025 which again was not served and was not in notice of the petitioner. However, later when the said order come to the notice of the petitioner then the petitioner preferred an appeal on 25.10.2025 which has been dismissed vide order dated 06.11.2025 on the grounds of being barred by limitation.

¶15

The pith and substance of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the cancellation of the registration, there was no

¶16

WTAX No. 1374 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

way for the petitioner to access the portal and the notice sent to the petitioner on the portal was meaningless as it was in the notice of the Department that the registration stood cancelled and in terms of Section 169 of the GST Act, 2017, the petitioner should have been served through an alternative mode which was not done. Thus, the proceedings, on the basis of the said notice dated 21.12.2022 which culminated in order dated 25.12.2023 is without opportunity of hearing and nonest.

¶19

It is only thereafter when it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the petitioner preferred an appeal which apparently was time barred and without having any option to raise such issue, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-Revenue, on the basis of written instructions, has pointed out that insofar as the issue of personal hearing is concerned that was not provided. He also submits that in the given circumstances, apparently, the appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation as the appellate authority does not have powers to condone the delay beyond four months and since the delay in the instant case was about a year and three quarters, the authority did not have powers to condone the delay and the order on this count cannot be faulted.

¶21

Having considered the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

¶22

Insofar as the facts which are admitted are concerned, it is not disputed by the respondents that the cancellation of the firm took place on 15.12.2022. It also could not be disputed that the notice dated 21.12.2022 was furnished on the portal, but once the registration stood cancelled, there was no reason for the petitioner to have accessed the portal. The order of cancellation was passed by the Department and it was very well in their knowledge and in such a scenario in case if the Department wished to initiate any proceedings, the same should have been done by putting the petitioner to notice appropriately in light of the modes prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, 2017 except the one through the portal.

¶23

WTAX No. 1374 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

Since, the petitioner was not put to notice, accordingly, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner got no right to contest or raise objections at any point of time. Any order which is passed against an assessee must be done only after affording an adequate opportunity and this proposition has been accepted and laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr; 2024:AHC:38820-DB and Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax and 2 others, 2022 SCC OnLine All 1088 .

¶26

In view of the admitted facts where the petitioner could not get any opportunity of hearing, consequently, the impugned orders which are apparently behind the back of the petitioner amounts to denial of opportunity and is per-se, arbitrary and accordingly, the impugned orders dated 06.11.2025 and 25.12.2023 are set aside. The respondents shall be at liberty to pass fresh orders after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶27

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . Costs are made easy.

¶28

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶29

December 3, 2025

¶30

Rakesh/-

¶31

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

M/S S.K.Power Solutions Thru. Partner Mr.Shoeb Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Tax and Reg. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S S.K.Power Solutions Thru. Partner Mr.Shoeb Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Tax and Reg. Lko and 2 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

Mohammed Faez Hassan and 28 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Education Lko. and 3 Others

Shyam Kumar Anand Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Ceiling and 12 Ors.

The State of U.P. Thru Collector Balrampur Vs the Additional Commissioner Admin Devi Patan and 4 Ors.

M/S Siddhi Associates Thr.Proprietor Suneel Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax Registration Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

M/S S.K.Power Solutions Thru. Partner Mr.Shoeb Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Tax and Reg. Lko and 2 Others

Rajesh Yadav and 4 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others