M/s Sky Associates v. State of U.P. and Another

Case snapshot

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

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: This writ petition is directed against order dated 15.3.2024 passed by the respondents whereby GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. Operative disposition: With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 10.12.2024 nd (Vikas Budhwar, J.) (Arun Bhansali,
• 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

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:193201-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2140 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/s Sky Associates Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhil Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent :- Nimai Dass, ACSC Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 15.3.2024 passed by the respondents whereby GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. It is inter-alia indicated that petitioner is registered under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ('Act, 2017') having GSTIN No.09EZRPS4978B1Z1. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner dated 6.2.2024 for cancellation of the registration on the common portal. The reason indicated in the notice was that the petitioner has not filed return for a continuous period of six months. It is claimed that notice was sent on the common portal, which the petitioner did not see, being unaware of the same and for lack of response, the impugned order dated 15.3.2024 ordering for cancellation of the registration was passed by the authority. 3. The petitioner became aware of the said aspect when it received the said information while dealing with the Railways wherein, it was indicated that its GST registration has been cancelled. The petitioner approached the respondents seeking revocation of the cancellation. However, the same has been refused. 4. Submission has been made that the petitioner is registered under the Composition Scheme and is required to file one quarterly

return (GSTR 4) and one annual return (GSTR 9A), however, the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, pertained to non filing of return for a continuous period of six months, which is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. However, the order of cancellation indicated the status of the petitioner as person, other than paying tax under Section 10 having been failed to furnish returns for prescribed periods under Section 29(2)(c) of the Act, 2017, which provision also is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. 5. Submission has been made that the order passed besides being non speaking reflects non application of mind inasmuch as the purported failure of the petitioner to file return, in terms of Section 29(2)(c) of the Act, 2017 is not applicable.

6. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner, would be governed by provisions of Section 29(2)(b) of the Act, 2017, which pertains to a person paying tax under Section 10 of the Act, 2017. 7. It is further submitted that as the show cause notice and the order impugned passed by the respondents, have been issued under wrong impression by treating the petitioner as person other than covered under Section 10 of the Act, 2017, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that nowhere in the petition any averment pertaining to the status of the petitioner as registered under Section 10 of the Act, 2017 has been made.

petitioner is that it is covered under Section 10 of the Act, 2017 and as such, issuance of notice itself is incorrect, and the order impugned dated 15.3.2024 ordering for cancellation of registration is non speaking, the same is quashed and set aside. 10. The matter is remanded back to the jurisdictional authority, the petitioner would appear before the said authority and file response to the show cause notice dated 6.2.2024 raising all pleas as sought to be raised in the present petition, including the fact that it is registered under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, 2017. 11. On petitioner's appearing before the authority, the authority shall hear the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The petitioner in the first instance shall appear before the authority on 24 December, 2024. 12. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 10.12.2024 nd (Vikas Budhwar, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

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

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/s Sky Associates v. State of U.P. and Another concerns issue and context: this writ petition is directed against order dated 15.3.2024 passed by the respondents whereby gst registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. operative disposition: with the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. order date :- 10.12.2024 nd (vikas budhwar, j.) (arun bhansali, 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. - 2140 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: This writ petition is directed against order dated 15.3.2024 passed by the respondents whereby GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. Operative disposition: With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 10.12.2024 nd (Vikas Budhwar, J.) (Arun Bhansali, Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 10; GST statutory provision - Section 29(2)—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 10; GST statutory provision - Section 29(2) and the decision date 2024-12-10; 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 M/s Sky Associates v. State of U.P. and Another, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. - 2140 of 2024, and the decision is dated 2024-12-10. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice; Vikas Budhwar,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 10; GST statutory provision - Section 29(2). 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 10 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 29(2) — 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 692 judgments
• Explore Demand & Adjudication

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY