Allahabad High Court
M/S Matah Shree Associates vs The State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 22 March, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 17 of 2023
Petitioner :- M/S Matah Shree Associates
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishwjit
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Sri Vishwjit the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shanker the counsel for the respondents.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that the petitioner was granted the registration and was carrying out the business, however, a show cause notice was sent by the respondents on 25.06.2021 alleging that the principal place of business was not found available at the time of field visit. The petitioner could not filed the reply to the said show cause notice, however, an order came to be passed cancelling the registration on 06.07.2021 (Annexure no.4).
He draws my attention to argue that no reasons have been recorded while passing the order of cancellation. It is stated that thereafter the petitioner moved an application for revocation of the cancellation of registration as provided under section 30 of GST Act. On the said application, once again a show cause notice was given to the petitioner proposing to cancel the registration. The reasons given in the show cause notice are as under :
"This has reference to your application dated 19/08/2021 regarding revocation of cancellation of registration. Your application has been examined and the same is liable to rejected for the following reasons:-
'any supporting document - others (please specify) - Upload CTO Survey report'."
It is stated that thereafter an order dated 29.09.2021 came to be passed rejecting the application for revocation on the ground that he had not filed the reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 19.10.2022.
In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.07.2021 and the order dated 29.09.2021 as well as the order dated 19.10.2022.
Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the order cancelling the registration is founded on the allegation that the principal place of business was not found/available at the time of field visit. He argues that no survey report, time of survey, place of survey and the person who carried out the survey was ever informed to the petitioner. He further argues that in any event the order of cancellation of the registration is without application of mind and none of the conditions specified in section 29 of the Act were attracted, even if the allegations in the show cause notice are treated to be correct for the sake of arguments. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of DRS Wood Products Lucknow vs. State of U.P. (2022) UPTC (112) 1847 as well as in Writ Tax No.147 of 2022 (M/s Chandra Sain vs. UOI) decided on 22.09.2022.
Considering the submissions made at the bar and on perusal of the provisions contained in Section 29 of the Act, it is clear that the cancellation of the registration cannot be resorted to unless the conditions specified under section 29(2) are made out.
It is well settled that even if the conditions stipulated under section 29 are made out, it is incumbent upon the respondents to accord the reasons while passing the order, which have not been done, as such, following the law as explained in the case of M/s DRS Wood Products (supra) and M/s Chandra Sain (supra), the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 06.07.2021, 29.09.2021 and 19.10.2022 are quashed.
The matter is remanded to the assessing authority to pass the fresh orders in accordance with law. The respondents shall supply whatever documents have been collected in the survey, to the petitioner before passing the fresh order, as directed above.
Order Date :- 22.3.2023
VNP/-
