TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceeded to decide the case without calling the counter affidavit. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by respondent no.2 in Reference No. ZA090823069892X as well as order dated 25.07.2024 passed by respondent no.3 in Appeal No. 175/GST/Allahabad/2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the registration of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 08.08.2023 against which an appeal was preferred, which has been rejected on the ground of laches in filing the appeal. 5. He has further submitted that the order of cancellation of registration has been passed without any application of mind as well as no reason has been assigned in the impugned orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eology Vs. C.C.E. (Appeals-II), Bangalore, and judgments of this Court passed in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur Vs. Mohd. Farooq, [2009] 184 Taxman 191 (Allahabad), M/s Yadav Steels Having Office Vs. Additional Commissioner and Another (Writ Tax No. 975 of 2023), Chikki Costmetics Budhanpur and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another (Writ Tax No. 1293 of 2024), M/s Arun Enterprises Vs. Union of India and 3 others (Writ Tax No. 1246 of 2024). He prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 11. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the records. 12. It is not in dispute that the registration of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 08.08.2023. The relevant part of order reads as under: - "Order for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 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 07.01.2023 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 ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 ....