Allahabad High Court
M/S Ngr Industries vs Joint Commissioner Cgst And Another on 27 August, 2025
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:150333
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 812 of 2023
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard Mr. Parth Goswami holding brief of Mr. Pranjal Shukla for the petitioner and Mr. Gaurav Mahajan for the respondent.
2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 12.8.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 and the order dated 26.4.2023 passed by respondent no. 1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of iron, aluminum and other metal scrap. On 3.6.2022 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for cancellation of GST registration to which the petitioner has submitted the reply on 9.6.2022 annexing all the relevant documents however being not satisfied with the same, the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled by the order dated 12.8.2022. The petitioner has challenged the said order in appeal, which has been dismissed on the ground of latches by the order dated 26.4.2023. He submits that cancellation of registration can be made as per Section 29 of the Act and there is no contravention of conditions mentioned under Section 29 of the Act on the part of the petitioner but the authorities have illegally cancelled the registration of the petitioner.
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Pragya Publicity Centre Vs. State of UP and others (Writ Tax No. 2242 of 2024) Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:67562.
5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.
7. This Court in the case of M/s Pragya Publicity Centre (Supra) has held as under:
"8. The record shows 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.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that his appeal has not been decided on merit though the same has been dismissed on the ground of latches, therefore, the doctrine of merger will have no application.
10. The impugned order which affect the right of the petitioner and has devoid of any reason, can be challenged before this Court as held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, 1998 (8) SCC 1.
11. This Court in the case of M/s Surya Associates Vs. Union of India and others (Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:166791) has held as under:
16. Further, this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma (supra) has held that if no reason has been assigned for cancelling the registration, such order cannot sustain despite appeal being dismissed on the ground of laches, and the doctrine of merger will have no application and set aside the orders impugned therein and remanded the matter for adjudicating the issue de novo.
17. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondents i.e. Chikki Costmetics Budhanpur (supra), M/s Arun Enterprises (supra) & M/s Yadav Steels (supra) has been held therein that that court below has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
18. Similarly, the Hon' ble Apex Court in the case of Hongo India (P) Ltd. (supra) and the Karnataka High Court in the case of Director of Mines and Geology (supra) has held that delay i.e. beyond the period, cannot be condoned.
19. In the case in hand, the cancellation of registration order has been passed without application of mind as no reason has been assigned in the impugned order dated 08.08.2023. However, the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that if no reason has been given for cancelling the registration, doctrine of merger will not apply and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondents in the case at hand, are of no aid to them.
20. The present case is similar to one Surendra Bahadaur Singh (supra), Namo Narayan Singh (supra) & Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma (supra); wherein the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 107 of the GST Act. After considering the original order, set aside the same being without any reason and allowed the petitioner therein to file reply to the show cause notice and further directed the authority concerned to proceed de novo.
21. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as law down in the aforesaid judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner, the impugned orders cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the same are hereby set aside.
12. The record shows that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and same does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court as referred herein above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed.
14. The writ petition is allowed. "
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court as referred herein above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed.
9. The writ petition is allowed.
10. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority, who shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner mentioning the reason of the proposed cancellation of registration within a period of one week from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to submit its reply within 21 days after receipt of the notice and after submitting the reply within time, the adjudicating authority shall pass reasoned and speaking order, within a period of two weeks thereafter, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
August 27, 2025
Rahul Dwivedi/-
