M/s Chandra Sain through Proprietor Chandra Sain v. Union of India and Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 29; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(4)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.02.2020 whereby the registration of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the appellate order dated 06.09.2022 whereby the appeal was dismissed as being beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Operative disposition: As the order dated 13.02.2020 is set aside, the further action shall prevail in accordance with law as prescribed under Section 29 of the GST Act. Order Date :- 22.9.2022 [Pankaj Bhatia, J.]
• 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

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 147 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Chandra Sain,Sharda Nagar, Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor Mr. Chandra Sain Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance,New Delhi And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjieva Shankhdhar,Durga Prasad Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G,C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.3 to 6. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.02.2020 whereby the registration of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the appellate order dated 06.09.2022 whereby the appeal was dismissed as being beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a proprietorship concern engaged in civil contractual works and was registered under the GST Act. It appears that as the GST returns was not filed by the counsel, a show-cause notice dated 04.02.2020 was served. In the said show-cause notice, the reasons as prescribed were as under: “Whereas on the basis of information which has come to my notice, it appears that your registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reasons: 1. Any Taxpayer other than composition taxpayer has not filed returns for a continuous period of six months You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the notice within seven working days from the date of service of this notice.

You are hereby direted to appear before the undersigned on 12/02/2020 at 11:24.” 4. The case of the petitioner is that the E-mail address in the registration was that of the Accountant of the petitioner, as such, the petitioner did not have knowledge of the show-cause notice, thus, the reply could not be filed and an order came to be passed on 13.02.2020 (Annexure – 2) whereby registration was cancelled. The gist of the cancellation order is reproduced herein below: “Reference Number: ZA0902200654020 Date: 13/02/2020 To CHANDRA SAIN 8438, RAJNI KHAND SHARDA NAGAR, Uttar Pradesh,226025 GSTIN/UIN :09CCBPS2158G2ZG Application Reference No. (ARN): AA090220006361Y Dated: 04/02/2020

Order for Cancellation of Registration This has reference to your reply dated 13/02/2020 in response to the notice to show cause dated 04/02/2020 Whereas no reply to notice to show cause has been submitted; The effective date of cancellation of your registration is 13/02/2020 Determination of amount payable pursuant to cancellation: Accordingly, the amount payable by you and the computation and basis thereof is as follows: The amounts determined as being payable above are without prejudice to any amount that may be found to be payable you on submission of final return fumished by you. You are required to pay the following amounts on or before 23/02/2020 failing which the amount will be recovered in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder.

Head Central Tax State Tax/UT Tax Integrated Tax Cess Tax 0 0 0 0 Interest 0 0 0 0 Penalty 0 0 0 0 Others 0 0 0 0 Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Place: Uttar Pradesh Date: 13/02/2020 VARUN KUMAR TRIP ATHI Assistant Commissioner Lucknow Sector - 9” 5. The petitioner could not prefer an appeal, which is prescribed under the Act, on account of Covid – 19 situation and the fact that the petitioner fell ill for which medical certificates were granted, as such, the petitioner preferred a delay condonation application alongwith the appeal. The Appellate Authority was of the view that in view of the Bar created under Section 107(4) of the GST Act, the delay cannot be condoned, as such, he proceeded to dismiss the appeal holding that no power of condonation of delay exists in the statutory scheme of Section 107 of GST Act.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that although no fault can be found with the appellate order dismissing the appeal as Aappellate Authority does not have the power to condone the delay in terms of the scheme of the Act, however, he argues that the order cancelling the registration is without application of mind; he draws my attention to the impugned order dated 13.02.2020, which does not disclose any application of mind. He, thus, argues that the quasi judicial order which

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

Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and Ors. - (1998) 8 SCC 1. 7. He further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Om Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P . & Ors.; Writ Tax No.100 of 2022 decided on 06.09.2022 wherein this Court had recorded that every administrative authority or a quasi judicial authority should necessarily indicate reasons as reasons are heart and soul of any judicial or administrative order. 8. In the present case from the perusal of the order dated 13.02.2020, clearly there is no reason ascribed to take such a harsh action of cancellation of registration. In view of the order being without any application of mind, the same does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such, the impugned order dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure – 2) is set aside.

The petition is accordingly allowed. 9. It is, however, directed that the petitioner shall file reply to the show-cause notice within a period of three weeks from today. The Adjudicating Authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner, Lucknow shall proceed to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after considering whatever defence he may take. 10. As the order dated 13.02.2020 is set aside, the further action shall prevail in accordance with law as prescribed under Section 29 of the GST Act. Order Date :- 22.9.2022 [Pankaj Bhatia, J.] nishant

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/s Chandra Sain through Proprietor Chandra Sain v. Union of India and Others concerns issue and context: present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.02.2020 whereby the registration of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the appellate order dated 06.09.2022 whereby the appeal was dismissed as being beyond the prescribed period of limitation. operative disposition: as the order dated 13.02.2020 is set aside, the further action shall prevail in accordance with law as prescribed under section 29 of the gst act. order date :- 22.9.2022 [pankaj bhatia, j.] 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. - 147 of 2022.

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 “Disposed” 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 13.02.2020 whereby the registration of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the appellate order dated 06.09.2022 whereby the appeal was dismissed as being beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Operative disposition: As the order dated 13.02.2020 is set aside, the further action shall prevail in accordance with law as prescribed under Section 29 of the GST Act. Order Date :- 22.9.2022 [Pankaj Bhatia, J.] Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 29; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(4)—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 GST statutory provision - Section 29; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(4) and the decision date 2022-09-22; 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 M/s Chandra Sain through Proprietor Chandra Sain v. Union of India and Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. - 147 of 2022, and the decision is dated 2022-09-22. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Pankaj Bhatia,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 GST statutory provision - Section 29; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(4). 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 Disposed. 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 and later 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

• GST statutory provision - Section 29 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107(4) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• VSA TRADING PVT LTD v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND ANR — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s R. Gupta Metal Store through Proprietor Mahesh Chand Gupta v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi North — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/S MOMS CRADLE PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. — Delhi High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Appeals & Limitation

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: Official primary text, exact sanitized mirror · Repository status: Published