Case Law Details
V.P. Constructions Lko. And Another Vs State of U.P. And 3 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The case of V.P. Constructions Lko. And Another Vs State of U.P. And 3 Others was brought before the Allahabad High Court, challenging the validity of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector 12, Lucknow, canceling the registration of the petitioner’s proprietorship concern, M/s V.P. Construction, Lucknow. The petitioner also challenged the validity of an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal) State Tax, Judicial Block-3, Lucknow, dismissing the defective appeal filed against the cancellation order.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the cancellation order lacked reasoning, as it mentioned conflicting information regarding the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice. While the order referenced the petitioner’s reply dated 17.07.2022, it also stated that no reply had been submitted. This inconsistency indicated a lack of application of mind by the authority, rendering the order unsustainable in law. The counsel emphasized that judicial orders must provide sufficient reasons, and the absence of reasoning in this case undermined the validity of the cancellation order.
Furthermore, the appeal against the cancellation order was dismissed solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the merits of the case. The counsel contended that while the limitation period might bar the remedy of appeal, it did not preclude the petitioner’s right to seek constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the impugned order affected valuable rights and was passed without justification.
Considering the arguments presented, the court held that the unreasoned order of cancellation could not be sustained, as it violated the requirement for judicial orders to provide sufficient reasons. Accordingly, the court set aside both the cancellation order and the dismissal of the appeal, directing the Assistant Commissioner to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner’s submissions made in the reply to the show cause notice.
The court also granted Respondent No.4 the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the law, ensuring that the petitioner would have adequate opportunity to present their case and address any issues raised. By providing this relief, the court upheld the principles of procedural fairness and judicial accountability, emphasizing the importance of reasoned decision-making in administrative actions
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Ankit Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. By means of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector 12, Lucknow (B) cancelling the registration of the petitioners’ proprietorship concern M/s V.P. Construction, Lucknow. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of an order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal) State Tax, Judicial Block-3, Lucknow, dismissing the Defective Appeal No.1 of 2024 filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid cancellation order dated 9.02.2022, only on the ground that the appeal had been filed belatedly.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cancellation order dated 09.02.2022 mentions that:-
“This has reference to your reply dated 17.07.2022 in response to show cause notice dated 07.07.2022.
Whereas no reply to notice to show cause has been submitted;
The effective date of cancellation of your registration is 09.09.2022.”
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid contents of the cancellation order indicate a total non application of mind by the authority concerned while cancelling the G.S.T registration of the petitioner as on the one hand the order states that it was being passed with reference to the petitioner’s reply dated 17.07.2022 but at the same time order states that the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the show cause notice. The contents of the petitioner’s reply dated 17.07.2022 have also not been taken into consideration while passing of the impugned order.
5. Such an unreasoned order cannot be sustained in law as no judicial order can be passed without giving sufficient reasons for passing of the order.
6. The appeal filed against the aforesaid order has been dismissed on the ground of limitation only.
7. Bar of limitation may bar the remedy of appeal but it does not bar the petitioner’s right to seek his constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the impugned order affects valuable rights of the petitioner and the same has been passed without assigning any reason.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The orders dated 09.02.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector 12, Lucknow (B) and 12.02.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal) State Tax, Judicial Block-3, Lucknow are hereby set aside and the learned Assistant Commissioner, Lucknow Sector 12, is directed to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the submissions made by the petitioner in the reply dated 17.07.2022 given in response to the show cause notice dated 07.07.2022.
9. The Respondent No.4 shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to present his case and after taking consideration the pleas taken by the petitioner, if any.
Author Bio
