Dayamalam Consulting And Construction Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Daya Ram Yadav Lko. v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance North Block New Delhi And 5 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: Provisions recorded in the judgment

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.03.2022, whereby GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled and the order dated 19.09.2022, whereby the Appeal No.96 of 2022 under U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 filed against the cancellation of registration has been dismissed. Operative disposition: Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 07.03.2022 as well as the appellate order dated 19.09.2022, is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to appear before the respondent along with the reply to show cause notice and the certified copy of this order as well as the copy of the judgment passed in Writ Tax No.145 of 2022 (Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India and others) dated 26.09.2022, within three weeks from today. In case, the petitioner appears along with the reply and the certified copy of this…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.03.2022, whereby GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled and the order dated 19.09.2022, whereby the Appeal No.96 of 2022 under U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 filed against the cancellation of registration has been dismissed.

The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is the sole proprietary of the firm engaged in the business of civil work contract and was registered under GST Act. It appears that the GST return was not filed by the counsel and thereafter a show cause notice dated 03.02.2022 was issued, directing the petitioner to furnish a reply to the notice within seven working days from the date of service of the notice.

The case of the petitioner is that he has not been able to get the show cause notice issued by the respondent and, therefore, he could not submit the reply within the stipulated time and, thus, an order came to be passed on 07.03.2022 whereby registration of the petitioner was cancelled. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground of delay.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he has not been heard while passing the order dated 07.03.2022, as such the present petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of the order passed by this Court in Writ Tax No.145 of 2022 (Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India and others) dated 26.09.2022. In the said judgment, the Court has held that the impugned order does not assign any reason whatsoever for cancelling registration of the petitioner and is passed only on the ground that reply to the show cause notice is not given. The non-submission of reply to the show cause cannot be a ground

"9. The Counsel for the petitioner argues that the appeal has been dismissed as being beyond limitation as such the doctrine of merger would not apply and the petitioner is fair entitled to seek judicial review of the order dated 03.01.2022 on the ground that the same is non speaking order. This Court while deciding Writ Tax No.147 of 2022 (M/S Chandrasen, Sarda Nagar, Lucknow vs Union of India and others) had held that the order of cancellation of registration or any other order passed either on administrative or on judicial side is without any reason and prima facie, without application of mind, the same does not stand the test of scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Harshita Mohan, Advocate holding brief of Shri Dipak Seth, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

10. Thus, following the said judgment rendered in the case of M/s Chandrasen (Supra), the writ petition deserves to be allowed."

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 07.03.2022 as well as the appellate order dated 19.09.2022, is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to appear before the respondent along with the reply to show cause notice and the certified copy of this order as well as the copy of the judgment passed in Writ Tax No.145 of 2022 (Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India and others) dated 26.09.2022, within three weeks from today. In case, the petitioner appears along with the reply and the certified copy of this order, the respondents shall proceed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Dayamalam Consulting And Construction Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Daya Ram Yadav Lko. v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance North Block New Delhi And 5 Others concerns issue and context: present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.03.2022, whereby gst registration of the petitioner has been cancelled and the order dated 19.09.2022, whereby the appeal no.96 of 2022 under u.p. goods and service tax act, 2017 filed against the cancellation of registration has been dismissed. operative disposition: accordingly, the present petition is allowed. the order dated 07.03.2022 as well as the appellate order dated 19.09.2022, is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to appear before the respondent along with the reply to show cause notice and the certified copy of this order as well as the copy of the judgment passed in writ tax no.145 of 2022 (technosum india pvt. ltd. lucknow vs. union of india and others) dated 26.09.2022, within three weeks from today. in case, the petitioner appears along with the reply and the certified copy of this… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. 36 of 2023.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Allowed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.03.2022, whereby GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled and the order dated 19.09.2022, whereby the Appeal No.96 of 2022 under U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 filed against the cancellation of registration has been dismissed. Operative disposition: Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 07.03.2022 as well as the appellate order dated 19.09.2022, is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to appear before the respondent along with the reply to show cause notice and the certified copy of this order as well as the copy of the judgment passed in Writ Tax No.145 of 2022 (Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India and others) dated 26.09.2022, within three weeks from today. In case, the petitioner appears along with the reply and the certified copy of this… Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) connected the governing provisions—Provisions recorded in the judgment—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of Provisions recorded in the judgment and the decision date 2023-02-10; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Dayamalam Consulting And Construction Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Daya Ram Yadav Lko. v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance North Block New Delhi And 5 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 36 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2023-02-10. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with Provisions recorded in the judgment. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Allowed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• Provisions in judgment — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/s Betterbot Tech Services Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Sun International Limited v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Another — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/s Vrinda Automation v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• ROOTS EDUCATION PVT LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXGST DELHI EAST ORS. — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 892 judgments
• Explore Demand & Adjudication

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT_SANITIZED_RENDITION · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY