M/S Shyam Sundar Sita Ram Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 10; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 29; GST statutory provision - Section 29(2); GST statutory provision - Section 30; GST statutory provision - Section 74

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.05.2021 (Annexure No.9) passed by the respondent no.3, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bareilly, whereby the application filed for revocation of cancellation of registration has been rejected, as well as the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, respondent no.2 in Appeal No.APL1/057/2021, whereby the appeal has been dismissed. Operative disposition: following the said judgment and coupled with the fact that the respondents themselves have initiated proceedings against the firm under Section 74, the order rejecting the application for revocation was a wrong exercise of power by the department. The appellate order is equally bad, inasmuch as, no such ground was mentioned before passing the order of cancellation and, thus the impugned…
• 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

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.05.2021 (Annexure No.9) passed by the respondent no.3, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bareilly, whereby the application filed for revocation of cancellation of registration has been rejected, as well as the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, respondent no.2 in Appeal No.APL1/057/2021, whereby the appeal has been dismissed.

place. It is stated that a show cause notice was issued on 11.02.2021 (Annexure No.3) wherein it was alleged that the registration is liable to be cancelled on the basis of information received from STF that the firm is not existing/ running at the registered place.

It is stated that in absence of the reply to the show cause notice dated 11.02.2021, the registration of the firm was cancelled vide order dated 31.03.2021 cancelling the registration on the ground that as per the information received, the firm was indulged in availing fake ITC credit from bogus firm. It was recorded that the reply given by the petitioner was not satisfactory as at the time of survey, no business activity was found at the given address. It was also recorded that the amendment as alleged was not given before the survey and was an after thought.

It is stated that the petitioner thereafter moved an application under Section 30 of the GST Act seeking revocation of cancellation of the registration. It is alleged that without issuing any show cause notice prior to taking decision on the application seeking revocation, an order came to be passed on 17.05.2021 rejecting the application of the petitioner. In the said order, it was mentioned that despite notice dated 22.04.2021, no reply has been submitted. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.2021, the petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed mainly on the foundation that in terms of the information received from various sources, ITC reversal orders were passed and nothing was found with regard to the said firm at the time of survey.

The Counsel for the petitioner argues that in none of the clauses as enumerated in Section 29(2) and as recorded above, non-availing ITC credit as is alleged against the petitioner, can be a ground for cancellation. He further argues that in the show cause notice, the only allegation levelled was that nothing was found in the premises in question. He places reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of DRS Wood Products Lucknow vs State of U.P. and others, decided on 05.08.2022

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

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

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

following the said judgment and coupled with the fact that the respondents themselves have initiated proceedings against the firm under Section 74, the order rejecting the application for revocation was a wrong exercise of power by the department. The appellate order is equally bad, inasmuch as, no such ground was mentioned before passing the order of cancellation and, thus the impugned orders 17.05.2021 and 14.09.2021 are set aside.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S Shyam Sundar Sita Ram Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.05.2021 (annexure no.9) passed by the respondent no.3, assistant commissioner, commercial tax, bareilly, whereby the application filed for revocation of cancellation of registration has been rejected, as well as the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the additional commissioner, commercial tax, respondent no.2 in appeal no.apl1/057/2021, whereby the appeal has been dismissed. operative disposition: following the said judgment and coupled with the fact that the respondents themselves have initiated proceedings against the firm under section 74, the order rejecting the application for revocation was a wrong exercise of power by the department. the appellate order is equally bad, inasmuch as, no such ground was mentioned before passing the order of cancellation and, thus the impugned… 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. 991 of 2021.

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: The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.05.2021 (Annexure No.9) passed by the respondent no.3, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bareilly, whereby the application filed for revocation of cancellation of registration has been rejected, as well as the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, respondent no.2 in Appeal No.APL1/057/2021, whereby the appeal has been dismissed. Operative disposition: following the said judgment and coupled with the fact that the respondents themselves have initiated proceedings against the firm under Section 74, the order rejecting the application for revocation was a wrong exercise of power by the department. The appellate order is equally bad, inasmuch as, no such ground was mentioned before passing the order of cancellation and, thus the impugned… Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 10; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 29; GST statutory provision - Section 29(2); GST statutory provision - Section 30; GST statutory provision - Section 74—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 2; GST statutory provision - Section 10; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 29; GST statutory provision - Section 29(2); GST statutory provision - Section 30; GST statutory provision - Section 74 and the decision date 2023-03-20; 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 Shyam Sundar Sita Ram Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 991 of 2021, and the decision is dated 2023-03-20. 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 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 2; GST statutory provision - Section 10; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 29; GST statutory provision - Section 29(2); GST statutory provision - Section 30; GST statutory provision - Section 74. 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

• GST statutory provision - Section 2 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 10 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 25 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 29 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 29(2) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 30 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Mohd. Akib v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• 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
• Sandeep Singhal v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 792 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