Disposed¶15

Rais Khan v. Assistant Commissioner and Another

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2025WTAX/618/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST registration cancellation set aside for non-application of mind; order recorded reply dated 30.10.2022 while cancelling for 'no response received'; show cause notice dated 18.10.2022 uploaded on Additional Tab of Portal; no opportunity of hearing; U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; liberty to file reply within 15 days and fresh decision with expedition; Allahabad High Court, WRIT TAX No. - 618 of 2025; Rais Khan v. Assistant Commissioner and another; Arun Bhansali CJ and Kshitij Shailendra J; time-barred appeal stated to be withdrawn; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:33692-DB.

What did the court decide?

Cancellation order dated 01.11.2022 set aside; petitioner permitted to file response to show cause notice dated 18.10.2022 within 15 days; respondent no. 1 to grant opportunity of hearing and decide with expedition. ¶15

Rais Khan vs Assistant Commissioner and Another — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 01.11.2022 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, passed allegedly without any response to the show cause notice and without providing any opportunity of hearing, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶7

Court's answer

The cancellation order dated 01.11.2022 reflects non-application of mind: it records that a reply dated 30.10.2022 was filed and examined, while giving 'no response received' as the reason for cancelling the registration, though admittedly no response was given.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the other aspects raised, the Court set aside the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by respondent no. 1.

¶13

Key takeaways

The petitioner may file its response to the show cause notice dated 18.10.2022 within a period of 15 days.ratio¶14
On filing of the said reply, respondent no. 1 shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter with expedition.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Division Bench: Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.), WRIT TAX No. - 618 of 2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:33692-DB, Order Date 7.3.2025. Petition by Rais Khan challenging order dated 01.11.2022 of respondent no. 1 cancelling his registration under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court found the order was passed without any application of mind: it recorded examination of a reply dated 30.10.2022 while citing 'no response received' as the cancellation ground, though admittedly no response had been filed to the show cause notice dated 18.10.2022 (submitted to have been uploaded on the Additional Tab of the Portal, with no opportunity of hearing). The Court set aside the order dated 01.11.2022 without going into other aspects, permitted the petitioner to file its response within 15 days, and directed respondent no. 1 to provide an opportunity of hearing and decide with expedition. Petition disposed of. No precedent engaged with; no quantum involved.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33692-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 618 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Rais Khan Respondent :- Assistant Commissioner and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhuti Narain Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Agarwal, S.C.

¶5

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

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the respondent no. 1 cancelling the petitioner's registration under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

¶7

Submissions have been made that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.10.2022, however, due to uploading of the notice on Additional Tab of the Portal, he could not file response to the said notice and without providing any opportunity of hearing, the order impugned has been passed and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶8

It is also submitted that an appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the order impugned, as the same is barred by limitation and the power to condone the delay is limited, the same is otherwise liable to be dismissed and therefore, the petitioner would withdraw the same.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel supported the order impugned.

¶10

We have considered the submissions and have perused the material available on record.

¶11

A bare perusal of order dated 01.11.2022 (Annexure-1 to the petition) reveals that the same has been passed without any application of mind. Admittedly, no response to the show cause notice was given by the petitioner, however, the order indicates that reply dated 30.10.2022 was filed which was examined and for the reason 'no response received', the registration has been cancelled.

¶12

The very fact that though no response was given by the petitioner to indicate that the response was received and then to cancel the registration on non-receipt of any response clearly reflects non application of mind by the officer for passing the order impugned.

¶13

In view of the above, without going into the other aspects of the matter as raised, we deem it appropriate and, therefore, set aside the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by respondent no.1.

¶14

The petitioner may file its response to the show cause notice dated 18.10.2022 within a period of 15 days, on filing of the said reply, the respondent no. 1 after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, would decide the same with expedition.

¶15

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.3.2025 nd

¶17

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

¶18

Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rais Khan v. Assistant Commissioner and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rais Khan v. Assistant Commissioner 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Regency Hospital Limited vs Union of India and 3 Others

Alok Choudhary vs State of Up and 2 Others

Raj Kishor and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Hemwanti Devi vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Chainpal Singh Chouhan vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ghanshyam Prasad Kesarwani vs State of Up and 5 Others