M/S S.S. Enterprises Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor Raj Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko And 2 Others

Case snapshot

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

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector 12, State Tax, Lucknow, by which the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled as well as the order dated 20.12.2023 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the respondent no.2 as barred by limitation as provided under section 107(4) of the UPGST Act (herein after referred to as the Act). Operative disposition: In view of the above, the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, respondent no.3 is hereby
• 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

2. The instant writ tax is being entertained by this Court in view of the fact that GST Tribunal is not functional in the State of U.P. Pursuant to the Gazette notification of the Central Government being No. CG-DL-E-14092023-248743 dated 14.9.2023.

3. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector 12, State Tax, Lucknow, by which the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled as well as the order dated 20.12.2023 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the respondent no.2 as barred by limitation as provided under section 107(4) of the UPGST Act (herein after referred to as the Act).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay. He further submits that detailed reason was assigned for filing the appeal beyond limitation but the same was not considered.

guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and the same has been taken away without any application of mind which is neither the intent of the Act nor can it be held to be in compliance of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions he has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Writ Tax No. 100 of 2022 ( Om Prakash Mishra vs. State of U.P. And others) decided on 6.9.2022 and in Writ Tax No. 147 of 2022 (M/s Chandra Sain, Sharda Nagar Lucknow through its proprietor Mr.Chandar Jain vs. U.O.I. Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Mnew Delhi and 5 others) decided on 22.9.2022. He further submits that while passing the cancellation order dated 20.01.2022 no reason has been assigned which is against the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademarks, Jumbai and others (1998) 8 SCC 1). He prays for allowing the writ petition.

7. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders dated 20.01.2022 and 20.12.2023 and submits that the proceedings have already been initiated against the petitioner and as the petitioner has not filed its return and tax, therefore, the registration of the firm has been cancelled. He further submits that the appeal was preferred by the petitioner beyond the period of limitation as provided under section 107(4) of the Act, therefore the appeal has been rejected. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registration of the petitioner has been cancelled without following the provision of section 29 of the Act and has passed the order dated 20.01.2022. He further submits that from a perusal of the order cancelling the registration of the petitioner has been passed mechanically without application of mind and without assigning any reason.

"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

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

9. Admittedly from the perusal of the order dated 20.01.2022. it transpires that no reason has been assigned for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner. The order of cancellation is in the teeth of various judgments of this Court as also referred to above. The reasons are heart and soul of any judicial and administrative order. In absence of the same the order cannot be justified in the eye of law. Further since the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay, this Court finds that the doctrine of merger will have no application considering the facts and circumstances of the present case.

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."

It is essential that every administrative authority or a quasi judicial authority should indicate the reasons, howsoever, brief they may be before passing an order of the nature which has been done by the authority. The order passed dated 15.03.2019 has a very harsh consequences and the same being without any reason whatsoever, fails to satisfy the test of a judicial order and suffers from the vice of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such, the order dated 15.03.2019 is set aside with direction to the petitioner to file his response to the show cause notice before the respondent no.3 who shall pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with all expedition. The petitioner would be at liberty to place whatever documents he pleases to rely upon in support of his defense. In view of the fact that the order dated 15.03.2019 is set aside, the appellate order, although not interfered with, is also set aside.

12. In view of the above, the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, respondent no.3 is hereby quashed.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S S.S. Enterprises Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor Raj Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko And 2 Others concerns issue and context: by means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the assistant commissioner, sector 12, state tax, lucknow, by which the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled as well as the order dated 20.12.2023 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the respondent no.2 as barred by limitation as provided under section 107(4) of the upgst act (herein after referred to as the act). operative disposition: in view of the above, the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the assistant commissioner, respondent no.3 is hereby 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. 48 of 2024.

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: By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector 12, State Tax, Lucknow, by which the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled as well as the order dated 20.12.2023 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the respondent no.2 as barred by limitation as provided under section 107(4) of the UPGST Act (herein after referred to as the Act). Operative disposition: In view of the above, the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, respondent no.3 is hereby Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 29; 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(4) and the decision date 2024-03-20; 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 S.S. Enterprises Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor Raj Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko And 2 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 48 of 2024, and the decision is dated 2024-03-20. 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 Alok Mathur,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(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 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 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(4) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/S EVES FASHION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/S CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION CO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/S JASMEET TRADING COMPANY v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI NORTH — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• ADITYA MADAAN v. COMMISSIONER CGST GST COMMISSIONERATE DELHI & ORS. — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 892 judgments
• Explore Appeals & Limitation

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

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