Case Law Details
Precitech Engineers Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
In Precitech Engineers vs. State of U.P. & Others, the petitioner challenged the cancellation of its GST registration via an order dated 09.12.2020 and the subsequent rejection of its appeal on 07.12.2022 for being time-barred. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice issued on 26.11.2020 failed to specify a date and time for the hearing, thereby denying them a fair opportunity to respond. The cancellation order was also alleged to be non-speaking, meaning it lacked reasoning or justification. Relying on previous Allahabad High Court rulings in M/s Jaiprakash Thekedar and M/s Chandra Sain, the petitioner argued that the order was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Allahabad High Court found merit in the petitioner’s claims, noting that the cancellation order was issued without due consideration and in violation of natural justice principles. The Court ruled that the non-speaking nature of the order and the lack of a scheduled hearing rendered the decision invalid. Consequently, it set aside both the cancellation and appeal rejection orders, directing the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter. The case was remanded for a fresh decision, with a specific directive to provide the petitioner with a proper hearing within three months.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.12.2020 whereby the registration of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the order dated 07.12.2022 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as being beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
The Counsel for the petitioner argues that a show cause notice was sent to the petitioner on 26.11.2020 (Annexure no.2) whereby the petitioner was called within a period of seven working days to submit a report and to appear for personal hearing. He further argues that no time and date was fixed for personal hearing. He argues that the petitioner could not file reply which led to the passing of the order dated 09.12.2020. He draws my attention to the order dated 09.12.2020 to argue that the said order is completely non-speaking 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.
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 judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Chandra Sain, Sharda Nagar, Lucknow through 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.
Accordingly, the orders impugned dated 09.12.2020 and 07.12.2022 are set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Author Bio
