S.K.Tripathi Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court heard a writ petition challenging the order dated 03.07.2024 by which the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled under Section 29(2)(d) of the GST Act, as well as the appellate order dated 22.08.2025 dismissing the petitioner’s appeal on the ground of limitation.
The petitioner contended that the cancellation order had been passed without granting any opportunity of personal hearing. It was argued that the powers under Section 29(2) of the GST Act are discretionary and cannot be exercised mechanically. The petitioner further submitted that the absence of a personal hearing before passing the cancellation order violated Section 75(4) of the UPGST/CGST Act. According to the petitioner, the order was passed ex parte due to incomplete service of notice, which prevented the petitioner from submitting a reply at the initial stage. It was also argued that although the appellate authority lacked the statutory power to condone delay, the original order itself was unsustainable because it had been passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Court examined the submissions and considered earlier decisions of the Court on similar issues. Reference was made to the judgment in M/s Chandra Sain v. Union of India and Others (Writ Tax No.147 of 2022). In that case, the Court had observed that although the appellate authority could not condone delay due to the limitation under Section 107(4) of the GST Act, the cancellation order itself could still be challenged if it lacked application of mind or failed to provide reasons. The earlier judgment had also emphasized that quasi-judicial orders affecting the right to carry on business must demonstrate proper reasoning and application of mind, particularly because such actions may impact the fundamental right to carry on trade or business under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
