Disposed¶11

Mak Fitness LLP v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Allahabad HC12 May 2025WTAX/2162/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WRIT TAX No. 2162 of 2025, Allahabad HC Division Bench (Arun Bhansali, CJ; Kshitij Shailendra, J), decided 12.5.2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:76595-DB: taxpayer whose GST registration was cancelled (27.02.2023, w.e.f. 01.02.2023) and never revived deemed not obligated to monitor GST portal for e-mode show cause notices for 2017-18; adjudication order of 18.09.2024 set aside for failure of essential natural justice requirement; petitioner to reply within 4 weeks treating order as notice; fresh adjudication with personal hearing preferably within 3 months; writ disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 18.09.2024 set aside; petitioner to treat it as the notice and submit final reply within four weeks; fresh order to be passed after affording opportunity of personal hearing, preferably within three months therefrom. ¶11

Mak Fitness LLP vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 was cancelled on 27.02.2023 w.e.f. 01.02.2023 and never revived, was obligated to visit the GST portal to receive the show cause notices for 2017-18 issued through e-mode preceding the adjudication order dated 18.09.2024. +3 more

¶7

Court's answer

The petitioner, whose UPGST Act, 2017 registration was cancelled on 27.02.2023 w.e.f. 01.02.2023 and was never revived (nor revival sought), was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive the show cause notices for 2017-18 issued through e-mode preceding the adjudication order dated 18.09.2024.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The revenue made no claim that any physical/offline notice was issued to or served on the petitioner before the impugned order was passed.

¶8

Key takeaways

In view of the peculiar facts, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending, calling counter affidavit at this stage, or relegating the petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy; the Court accordingly proceeded without those steps.ratio¶9
The essential requirement of the rules of natural justice having remained unfulfilled, the adjudication order dated 18.09.2024 is set aside.ratio¶10
The petitioner may treat the set-aside order dated 18.09.2024 itself as the notice and submit its final reply thereto within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Chief Justice's Court), Division Bench — Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:76595-DB; WRIT TAX No. - 2162 of 2025; decided 12.5.2025 by Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J. Petitioner: MAK FITNESS LLP; Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh and another. The petitioner's registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 had been cancelled on 27.02.2023 w.e.f. 01.02.2023 and was never revived; show cause notices for 2017-18 were issued through e-mode, preceding the adjudication order dated 18.09.2024, and the revenue made no claim that any physical/offline notice had been issued or served. Holding that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive e-mode notices and that the essential requirement of rules of natural justice remained unfulfilled, the Court declined to call counter affidavit or relegate the petitioner to alternative remedy, set aside the order dated 18.09.2024, directed the petitioner to treat that order itself as the notice and submit its final reply within four weeks, and directed that, subject to such compliance, a fresh order be passed after personal hearing, preferably within three months. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76595-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2162 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- MAK FITNESS LLP Respondent :- State of Uttar Pradesh and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Divyanshu Pandey, Utkarsh Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- Nimai Dass (A.C.S.C.)

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.

¶6

Having heard Sri Utkarsh Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Dass, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents, it remains undisputed that the petitioner's registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 was cancelled on 27.02.2023 w.e.f. 01.02.2023. It is not the case of the revenue that the said registration has ever been revived or that the petitioner ever sought revival of that registration.

¶7

In view of the above, it does merit acceptance that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive the show cause notices that may have been issued to the petitioner for 2017-18 through e-mode, preceding the adjudication order dated 18.09.2024 passed in pursuance thereto.

¶8

It is also not the case of the revenue that any physical/offline notice was issued to or served on the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed.

¶9

In view of peculiar facts noted above, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the petition pending or calling counter affidavit at this stage or to relegate the present petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy.

¶10

Since essential requirement of rules of natural justice has remained to be fulfilled, we set aside the order dated 18.09.2024. The petitioner may treat the said order itself to be the notice and submit its final reply thereto within a period of four weeks from today. Subject to such compliance by the petitioner, fresh order may be passed after affording opportunity of personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months therefrom.

¶11

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 12.5.2025 AHA/Sazia

¶13

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶14

Digitally signed by :- AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mak Fitness LLP v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mak Fitness LLP v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Board of Trustees Epfo vs the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench and Another

Union of India and 3 Others vs Vimal Kumar Yadav and Another

Bachchuram Ramswaroop Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kasim Ali vs Deputy Commissioner, State Tax SECTOR-13, Ghaziabad

Smt. Rajni Singh vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jameel Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another