M/S Katyal Industries v. State Of Up And 2 Others
Case note by CA Nikhil Gupta
Case overview
This Allahabad High Court decision concerns None. The retained release ledger records the outcome as Allowed / set aside and classifies the matter under Demand & Adjudication.
Facts and procedural background
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:23760-DB
Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 142 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Katyal Industries Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it remains undisputed that the petitioner's registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 was cancelled on 21.5.2019. It is not the case of the revenue that the said registration has ever been revived or that the petitioner ever sought revival of that registration.
Issues before the Court
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it remains undisputed that the petitioner's registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 was cancelled on 21.5.2019. It is not the case of the revenue that the said registration has ever been revived or that the petitioner ever sought revival of that registration.
2. In view of the above, it does merit acceptance that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive the show cause notices that may have been issued to the petitioner for the period of April, 2018 to March, 2019 through e-mode, preceding the adjudication order dated 20.6.2023 passed in pursuance thereto.
Court's analysis and findings
1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it remains undisputed that the petitioner's registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 was cancelled on 21.5.2019. It is not the case of the revenue that the said registration has ever been revived or that the petitioner ever sought revival of that registration.
2. In view of the above, it does merit acceptance that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive the show cause notices that may have been issued to the petitioner for the period of April, 2018 to March, 2019 through e-mode, preceding the adjudication order dated 20.6.2023 passed in pursuance thereto.
3. It is also not the case of the revenue that any physical/offline notice was issued to or served on the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed.
4. In view of peculiar facts noted above, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the petition pending or calling counter affidavit at this stage or to relegate the present petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy.
Decision and relief
4. In view of peculiar facts noted above, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the petition pending or calling counter affidavit at this stage or to relegate the present petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy.
5. Since essential requirement of rules of natural justice has remained to be fulfilled, we set aside the order dated 20.6.2023. The petitioner may treat the said order itself to be the notice and submit its final reply thereto within a period of four weeks from today. Subject to such compliance by the petitioner, fresh order may be passed after affording opportunity of personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months therefrom. Disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.2.2024 Salim
2024-02-12T17:22:06+0530 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Ratio and practical significance
The binding effect flows from the court's operative reasoning reproduced below, read in the context of the pleaded facts and statutory provisions. Users should not generalise the result beyond materially comparable facts.
- Map the operative reasoning to the exact GST provision and procedural stage.
- Confirm whether a later review, appeal, SLP or subsequent judgment affects reliance.
- Preserve the official case number, decision date and neutral citation in professional work.
Full judgment text
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:23760-DB
Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 142 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Katyal Industries Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it remains undisputed that the petitioner's registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 was cancelled on 21.5.2019. It is not the case of the revenue that the said registration has ever been revived or that the petitioner ever sought revival of that registration.
2. In view of the above, it does merit acceptance that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive the show cause notices that may have been issued to the petitioner for the period of April, 2018 to March, 2019 through e-mode, preceding the adjudication order dated 20.6.2023 passed in pursuance thereto.
3. It is also not the case of the revenue that any physical/offline notice was issued to or served on the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed.
4. In view of peculiar facts noted above, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the petition pending or calling counter affidavit at this stage or to relegate the present petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy.
5. Since essential requirement of rules of natural justice has remained to be fulfilled, we set aside the order dated 20.6.2023. The petitioner may treat the said order itself to be the notice and submit its final reply thereto within a period of four weeks from today. Subject to such compliance by the petitioner, fresh order may be passed after affording opportunity of personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months therefrom. Disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.2.2024 Salim
2024-02-12T17:22:06+0530 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Finin2min Q&A
What court decided this case?
Allahabad High Court
What was the case number?
WRIT TAX No. 142 of 2024
When was the decision delivered?
2024-02-12
Which GST provisions are identified in the case?
None
What was the recorded outcome?
Allowed / set aside
Is the complete judgment text available here?
Yes. This page includes a faithful local rendition of the full text recovered from the issuing court source.
Should this page substitute professional advice?
No. Verify the official citation and later history before professional reliance.
Who authored the Finin2min case note?
CA Nikhil Gupta.