Disposed¶8

M/S Shree Balaji Tea Co.Thru. Proprietor Mr. Nitin Bansal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Tax and Registration Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2026WTAX/281/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

U.P. GST Act 2017 Section 73; cancellation of GST registration; show cause notice uploaded on GST portal; service by alternative means; violation of natural justice; quashing of order and notice; Article 226 writ petition; Writ Tax; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P.; 2024:AHC:23697-DB; Shree Balaji Tea Co.; disposed of March 16, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated December 21, 2023 and impugned notice dated September 13, 2023 quashed and set aside; department given liberty to issue a proper notice to the petitioner and act in accordance with law. ¶8

M/S Shree Balaji Tea Co.Thru. Proprietor Mr. Nitin… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether, after cancellation of the petitioner's registration under the U.P. GST Act, a show cause notice uploaded only on the GST portal constitutes valid service, or whether service must be effected by alternative means. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

Once the petitioner's registration has been cancelled, the petitioner is not obligated to check the GST portal; the mode of service of any show cause notice has to be by way of alternative means to the petitioner.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The Court is essentially in agreement with the principle enunciated by the coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. and others (Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:23697-DB), relied upon by counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

Key takeaways

There has been violation of the principle of natural justice; accordingly, the impugned order dated December 21, 2023 and the impugned notice dated September 13, 2023 passed by respondent No.3 are quashed and set aside.ratio¶7
The department shall be at liberty to issue a proper notice to the petitioner and act in accordance with law.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Tax No. 281 of 2026 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; decided March 16, 2026; Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla, JJ.). The petitioner's registration under the U.P. GST Act, 2017 stood cancelled on December 18, 2020, after which no business was carried on. A show cause notice under Section 73 was merely uploaded on the GST portal and an ex parte order dated December 21, 2023 (with notice dated September 13, 2023) was passed by respondent No.3. Holding that a cancelled registrant is not obligated to check the GST portal and that service of any show cause notice must be by alternative means, and endorsing the coordinate Bench ruling in M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. and others (2024:AHC:23697-DB), the Court found a violation of natural justice, quashed and set aside the impugned order and notice, and left the department free to issue a proper notice and act in accordance with law. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 281 of 2026

¶3

M/S Shree Balaji Tea Co.Thru. Proprietor Mr. Nitin Bansal

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

And Registration Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Kumar Shukla, Rakesh K. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 3

¶9

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated December 21, 2023 and the impugned notice dated September 13, 2023 passed by the respondent No.3, under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

¶13

Factual matrix in the matter is that the petitioner's registration under the Act was cancelled on December 18, 2020. Subsequent to the same, no business was carried out by the petitioner. It appears that a show cause notice was uploaded on the GST portal and subsequent to the same, the order impugned was passed under Section 73 of the Act.

¶14

Once the registration has been cancelled, the petitioner is not obligated to check GST portal. The mode of service of any show cause notice has to be by way of alternative means to the petitioner.

¶15

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies upon an order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Katyal

¶16

WTAX No. 281 of 2026

¶17

¶18

Industries v. State of U.P. and others , Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:23697-DB. We are essentially in agreement with the said principle enunciated by the coordinate Bench in the said order.

¶19

We find that there has been violation of the principle of natural justice, and accordingly, the impugned order dated December 21, 2023 and the impugned notice dated September 13, 2023 passed by the respondent No.3 are quashed and set aside. The department shall be at liberty to issue a proper notice to the petitioner and act in accordance with law.

¶20

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶21

March 16, 2026 cks/-

¶22

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Shree Balaji Tea Co.Thru. Proprietor Mr. Nitin Bansal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Tax and Registration Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shree Balaji Tea Co.Thru. Proprietor Mr. Nitin Bansal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Tax and Registration 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

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue U.P. and 3 Others

Subhash Chand vs Distt. Magistrate,Ambedkar Nagar and 8 Others

Sushama Vishwkarma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Abbas Haider Zaidi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 6 Others

M/S Janak Dulari Thru. Authorized Signatory,Shashi Dev Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and Another

Prashant Shekhar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko. and 2 Others