Disposed¶18

M/S Lucknow Plastics Thru. Proprietor Maksood Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2026WTAX/31/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

U.P. GST Act Section 73 ex parte demand order; service of show cause notice by uploading on GST portal held improper where GST registration already cancelled; assessee not bound to monitor portal; violation of natural justice; order quashed with liberty to issue fresh notice; M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. (2024:AHC:23697-DB) followed; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WRIT TAX No. 31 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.02.2025 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act quashed and set aside; Department at liberty to issue a proper notice to the petitioner and act in accordance with law. ¶18

M/S Lucknow Plastics Thru. Proprietor Maksood Ali vs… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 27.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, pursuant to a show cause notice merely uploaded on the GST portal despite prior cancellation of the petitioner's registration, violates the principles of natural justice.

¶13

Court's answer

Once a taxpayer's registration under the Act has been cancelled, the taxpayer is not obligated to check the GST portal, and any show cause notice must be served by alternative means.

¶13

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 (2024:AHC:23697-DB).

¶14

Key takeaways

There has been violation of the principle of natural justice, and accordingly the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside.ratio¶17
The Department is at liberty to issue a proper notice to the petitioner and act in accordance with law.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ under Article 226 against ex parte order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's registration had been cancelled on 09.10.2020 and the show cause notice was merely uploaded on the GST portal. Held: once registration stands cancelled, the assessee is not obligated to check the GST portal and any show cause notice must be served by alternative means; following the coordinate Bench decision 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 granted the Department liberty to issue a proper notice and act in accordance with law. Writ petition disposed of (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla, JJ., decided January 27, 2026).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 31 of 2026

¶3

M/S Lucknow Plastics Thru. Proprietor Maksood Ali

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Court No. - 3

¶9

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

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.2, Assistant Commissioner, Chatrapati Sahuji Maharaj, (Amethi), Sector-2: Ayodhya (A), Uttar Pradesh under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

¶12

Factual matrix in the matter is that the petitioner's registration under the Act was cancelled on 09.10.2020. 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies upon an order passed 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. We are essentially in agreement with the said principle enunciated by the coordinate Bench in the said order.

¶15

WTAX No. 31 of 2026

¶16

¶17

We find that there has been violation of the principle of natural justice, and accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The Department shall be at liberty to issue a proper notice to the petitioner and act in accordance with law.

¶18

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

¶19

January 27, 2026 Satish

¶20

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

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Lucknow Plastics Thru. Proprietor Maksood Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Lucknow Plastics Thru. Proprietor Maksood Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and Another

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

Mohd. Mateen vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Prema Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Canara Bank Thru. Authorized Officer, Sri Rishikesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. and 7 Others

Kashi Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Mohammad Aftab vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Sangeeta Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. and 3 Others