TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the partners, i.e., Smt. Pushpa Yadav, was diagnosed with cancer and her husband and son, being the other partners of the firm, were got involved in her treatment and therefore, the business was neglected, which resulted in non-filing of GSTR - 3B & GSTR - 1 within the time limit as prescribed under the GST Act. Thereafter, on 12.04.2023, a notice was issued by the respondent no. 3 for cancellation of the registration on the ground that the petitioner has failed to continuously furnish returns for a period of six months. The notice was issued through e-mail and as the other partners were involved in the treatment of Smt. Pushpa Yadav, they could not check e-mail. Thereafter, The respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cancellation of registration has serious consequence resulting in serious prejudice to the right and interest of the petitioner. Therefore, passing an order in gross violation of the principles of natural justice is clearly unsustainable in the eyes of law. 6. In support of her submissions, she has relied upon the judgements of this Court in Precitech Enginees Vs. State of U.P. & Others [MANU/UP/1870/2023] and M/s Assaka Powerinfra Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others [Writ Tax No. 1317/2024, decided on 02.09.2024]. She further submits that once the tax, along with interest as well as returns have been filed, the registration of the petitioner is liable to be restored. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the judgement of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2020 to argue that the said order is completely nonspeaking order. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which too was dismissed on the ground that the same was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 3. In the light of the said submission, he argues that non-speaking order is neither contemplated under the Act nor does it conform with the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He argues that in the notice does not specify the time and the date which is arbitrary exercise of power. In support of this, he places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Jaiprakash Thekedar vs Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and another; [(2023 U.P.T.C. (VOL.113) - 162]. He also relies upon the judgmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ply from the petitioner. It is further submitted that cancellation of registration of petitioner firm resulted in serious prejudice to the rights and interest of the petitioner and as such the order, therefore, passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, is clearly unsustainable. It is submitted that the order itself discloses that no opportunity of hearing was ever provided to the petitioner and the order has been passed in a cursory and mechanical manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment and order dated 4th March, 2023 passed by this Court in Writ Tax No. 1583 of 2022; M/s Precitech Engineers vs. State of U.P. & others, wherein in the relevant paragraphs considering the legal position ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh its Proprietor Mr. Chandra Sain vs U.O.I. through Secretary Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and others; [2022 U.P.T.C. (VOL.112) -1861]. Considering the fact that the order impugned cancelling the registration is prima facie without application of mind which is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in the case of M/s Chandra Sain (Supra) and the issue of non-fixation of time and date is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in the case of M/s Jaiprakash Thekedar (Supra), the writ petition deserves to be allowed on both the counts. " 4. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the aforesaid legal position laid down in order of this Court and also could not demonstrate from the impugned orders as to whether ....