S Shikhar Rail Infra Thru.Authorized Signatory Virendra Kumar Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Govt. U.P. And

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.02.2023, whereby the petitioner's registration was cancelled under Section 29(2)(d) of GST Act as well as the appellate order dated 18.09.2025 whereby the appeal was dismissed as being beyond limitation. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that prior to passing of the order, no opportunity of hearing was granted. He argues that provisions of Section 29(2) are discretionary powers and cannot be exercised mechanically. He argues that 2 WTAX No. 1593 of 2025 the registration cancellation was ex-parte in nature.

4. It has further been urged that even though the appellate authority does not have the power to condone the delay but the fact remains that at the stage of inception, the petitioner could not furnish his reply and the order was patently exparte. Apparently, it is a case where the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, apart from the fact that the order also suffers from the vice of being non-reasoned.

5. Shri Vikram Soni, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has submitted that the opportunity was granted which was not availed by the petitioner hence, it cannot be said that the order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from a perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the issue involved in the instant petition, similarly has been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Chandra Sain Vs Union of India and Ors., passed in Writ Tax No.147 of 2022, wherein Coordinate Bench after noticing the order of cancellation of registration in Para-6 and 7 has held as under:- ''6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that although no fault can be found with the appellate order dismissing the appeal as Appellate Authority does not have the power to condone the delay in terms of the scheme of the Act, however, he argues that the order cancelling the registration is without application of mind; he draws my attention to the impugned order dated 13.02.2020, which does not disclose any application of mind. He, thus, argues that the quasi judicial order which has an adverse effect on the right of the petitioner to run business as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the same has been done without any application of mind which is neither the intent of the Act nor can it be held to be in compliance of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further argues that as the appeal has not been decided on merit, the doctrine of merger will have no application and it is only the order dated 13.02.2020 which affects the petitioner and as the same is devoid of any reasons, the same can be challenged before this Court as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and Ors. - (1998) 8 SCC 1.

7. He further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Om Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors.; Writ Tax No.100 of 2022 decided on 06.09.2022 wherein this Court had recorded that every administrative authority or a quasi judicial authority should necessarily indicate reasons as reasons are heart and soul of any judicial or administrative order." 7. In the present case from the perusal of the order dated 07.02.2023, clearly there is no reason ascribed to take such a harsh action of cancellation of registration. In view of the order being without any application of mind, the same does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such, the impugned order dated 07.02.2023 is set aside. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 07.02.2023 as well as appellate order dated 18.09.2025 are quashed and are set aside. 3 WTAX No. 1593 of 2025

9. The petitioner is directed to file its reply to the show cause within three weeks from today, the adjudicating authority shall thereafter pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and taking note of the defence raised by the petitioner.

10. The present petition stands allowed in above terms. " It is further submitted that case of the applicant is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and order. Learned State Counsel has very fairly submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 28.10.2025 passed in Writ Tax No. 1183 of 2025 (M/s Sunita Singh Construction, Sultanpur through Proprietor Suneeta Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and others) . In the present case from the perusal of the order dated 27.06.2024, clearly there is no reason ascribed to take such a harsh action of cancellation of registration. In view of the order being without any application of mind, the same does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such, the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 is set aside. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 27.06.2024 as well as appellate order dated 31.10.2025 are quashed and are set aside. The petitioner is directed to file its reply to the show cause within three weeks from today, the adjudicating authority shall thereafter pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and taking note of the defence raised by the petitioner. The present petition stands allowed in above terms. December 15, 2025 Ashish (Manish Kumar,J.) ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.02.2023, whereby the petitioner's registration was cancelled under Section 29(2)(d) of GST Act as well as the appellate order dated 18.09.2025 whereby the appeal was dismissed as being beyond limitation. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that prior to passing of the order, no opportunity of hearing was granted. He argues that provisions of Section 29(2) are discretionary powers and cannot be exercised mechanically. He argues that 2 WTAX No. 1593 of 2025 the registration cancellation was ex-parte in nature.

4. It has further been urged that even though the appellate authority does not have the power to condone the delay but the fact remains that at the stage of inception, the petitioner could not furnish his reply and the order was patently exparte. Apparently, it is a case where the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, apart from the fact that the order also suffers from the vice of being non-reasoned.

5. Shri Vikram Soni, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has submitted that the opportunity was granted which was not availed by the petitioner hence, it cannot be said that the order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from a perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the issue involved in the instant petition, similarly has been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Chandra Sain Vs Union of India and Ors., passed in Writ Tax No.147 of 2022, wherein Coordinate Bench after noticing the order of cancellation of registration in Para-6 and 7 has held as under:- ''6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that although no fault can be found with the appellate order dismissing the appeal as Appellate Authority does not have the power to condone the delay in terms of the scheme of the Act, however, he argues that the order cancelling the registration is without application of mind; he draws my attention to the impugned order dated 13.02.2020, which does not disclose any application of mind. He, thus, argues that the quasi judicial order which has an adverse effect on the right of the petitioner to run business as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the same has been done without any application of mind which is neither the intent of the Act nor can it be held to be in compliance of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further argues that as the appeal has not been decided on merit, the doctrine of merger will have no application and it is only the order dated 13.02.2020 which affects the petitioner and as the same is devoid of any reasons, the same can be challenged before this Court as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and Ors. - (1998) 8 SCC 1.

7. He further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Om Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors.; Writ Tax No.100 of 2022 decided on 06.09.2022 wherein this Court had recorded that every administrative authority or a quasi judicial authority should necessarily indicate reasons as reasons are heart and soul of any judicial or administrative order." 7. In the present case from the perusal of the order dated 07.02.2023, clearly there is no reason ascribed to take such a harsh action of cancellation of registration. In view of the order being without any application of mind, the same does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such, the impugned order dated 07.02.2023 is set aside. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 07.02.2023 as well as appellate order dated 18.09.2025 are quashed and are set aside. 3 WTAX No. 1593 of 2025

9. The petitioner is directed to file its reply to the show cause within three weeks from today, the adjudicating authority shall thereafter pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and taking note of the defence raised by the petitioner.

10. The present petition stands allowed in above terms. " It is further submitted that case of the applicant is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and order. Learned State Counsel has very fairly submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 28.10.2025 passed in Writ Tax No. 1183 of 2025 (M/s Sunita Singh Construction, Sultanpur through Proprietor Suneeta Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and others) . In the present case from the perusal of the order dated 27.06.2024, clearly there is no reason ascribed to take such a harsh action of cancellation of registration. In view of the order being without any application of mind, the same does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such, the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 is set aside. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 27.06.2024 as well as appellate order dated 31.10.2025 are quashed and are set aside. The petitioner is directed to file its reply to the show cause within three weeks from today, the adjudicating authority shall thereafter pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and taking note of the defence raised by the petitioner. The present petition stands allowed in above terms. December 15, 2025 Ashish (Manish Kumar,J.) ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench