Disposed¶9

M/S Mahadevi Construction v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2025WTAX/673/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

2025:AHC:29128-DB; WRIT TAX 673 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Arun Bhansali CJ; Kshitij Shailendra J; M/s Mahadevi Construction v State of U.P.; U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act 2017; GST registration cancellation set aside; order dated 16.03.2023; non-application of mind; reply dated 14.02.2023 recorded filed and examined yet cancelled for 'no response received'; show cause notice dated 14.01.2023; reply within 15 days; opportunity of hearing; decide with expedition; petition disposed of 3.3.2025

What did the court decide?

Cancellation order dated 16.03.2023 (passed by respondent no.2) set aside; petitioner permitted to file response to show cause notice dated 14.01.2023 within 15 days; respondent no.2 to provide opportunity of hearing and decide the matter afresh with expedition. ¶9

M/S Mahadevi Construction vs State of U.P. and Another — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's registration was effected by an order passed without application of mind - one that records a reply dated 14.02.2023 as filed and examined yet cancels the registration for the reason 'no response received' - warranting that it be set aside.

¶6

Court's answer

The order dated 16.03.2023 indicates that a reply dated 14.02.2023 was filed and examined, yet cancels the registration for the reason 'no response received'; this reflects non-application of mind by the officer who passed it.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

On that ground, without going into the other aspects of the matter as raised, the court set aside the order dated 16.03.2023 passed by respondent no.2.

¶7

Key takeaways

The petitioner may file its response to the show cause notice dated 14.01.2023 within a period of 15 days.ratio¶8
Upon the reply being filed, respondent no.2 is to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter with expedition.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice; Kshitij Shailendra, J.), WRIT TAX No. 673 of 2025, order dated 3.3.2025. M/s Mahadevi Construction challenged the respondents' cancellation of its registration under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court found the cancellation order dated 16.03.2023 (Annexure-4) passed by respondent no.2 reflected non-application of mind: it recorded that a reply dated 14.02.2023 had been filed and examined, yet cancelled the registration for the reason 'no response received'. Setting that order aside without addressing other aspects raised, the court directed the petitioner to file its response to the show cause notice dated 14.01.2023 within 15 days, following which respondent no.2 is to provide an opportunity of hearing and decide with expedition. Petition disposed of. Note: judgment para 1 dates the challenged order as 14.01.2023 (the same date as the show cause notice in para 2), whereas the order actually set aside bears date 16.03.2023.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29128-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 673 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Mahadevi Construction Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Radheshyam Yadav, Surendra Kumar Verma 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 14.01.2023 passed by the respondents 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 14.01.2023, however, as petitioner and his wife were seriously ill, they 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

Learned Standing Counsel supported the order impugned.

¶9

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

¶10

A bare perusal of order dated 16.03.2023 (Annexure-4 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 14.02.2023 was filed which was examined and for the reason 'no response received', the registration has been cancelled.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 16.03.2023 passed by the respondent no.2.

¶13

The petitioner may file its response to the show cause notice dated 14.01.2023 within a period of 15 days, on filing of the said reply, the respondent No.2 after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, would decide the same with expedition.

¶14

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.3.2025

¶16

RK/ Jyotsana

¶17

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

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Mahadevi Construction v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mahadevi Construction v. State of U.P. 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

M/S Jay Prakashthekedar vs Assistant Commissioner State Tax Mahoba

Subhanti Rai and 5 Others vs Committee of Management of Van Awadh Gram Shiksha Mandal District Mau and 19 Others

Chandrashekhar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Mustaq Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sushil Chandra Pal and 7 Others vs Bifr, through Its Secretary / Registrar and Another

M/S. Aditya Traders vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another