Mahadev Prasad Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another
Reviewed by CA Nikhil Gupta · Last reviewed 18 March 2024
Case data and operative result
Repository ID: F2J-C-0947
Court / Tribunal: Allahabad High Court
Case number: WRIT TAX No. 240 of 2024
Decision date: —
Law family: GST
Outcome category: Disposed
Sections / provisions: Article 226
Extractive case note
Petitioner :- Mahadev Prasad Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 1. Heard Sri Yashonidhi Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Solitary challenge has been raised to the order dated 6.4.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 cancelling the petitioner's registration under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 3. Besides, the statutory remedies that were available to the petitioner, at present, one year has passed since the impugned order came into existence.
Operative-result extract
6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to avail his statutory remedies available under law.
Download the complete local judgment PDF (F2J-C-0947)
The complete packaged judgment text and PDF are the controlling records. The case note is extractive and should not be treated as a substitute for the operative order or later-history verification.
Case note by CA Nikhil Gupta
Case overview
This Allahabad High Court decision concerns None. The retained release ledger records the outcome as Disposed and classifies the matter under Appeals & Limitation.
Facts and procedural background
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:48572-DB
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 240 of 2024
Petitioner :- Mahadev Prasad Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
Issues before the Court
Petitioner :- Mahadev Prasad Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
1. Heard Sri Yashonidhi Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Court's analysis and findings
2. Solitary challenge has been raised to the order dated 6.4.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 cancelling the petitioner's registration under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Besides, the statutory remedies that were available to the petitioner, at present, one year has passed since the impugned order came into existence.
4. Under taxation statues, that too in respect of registration matters, unexplained delay may remain fatal to the proceedings. Here, facts have been pleaded that the petitioner was not aware of the impugned order. Prima facie Covid-19 circumstances cannot be cited to seek condonation of delay in the present case, where the impugned order itself came to be passed on 6.4.2023.
5. In view of above, we do not find any good ground to offer interference claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Decision and relief
7. In case, any such appeal is filed, the same may be dealt with and decided on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by any of the observations made by this Court.
Order Date :- 18.3.2024 CS/-
(Surendra Singh-I, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.)
2024-03-20T16:18:55+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:48572-DB
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 240 of 2024
Petitioner :- Mahadev Prasad Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
1. Heard Sri Yashonidhi Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Solitary challenge has been raised to the order dated 6.4.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 cancelling the petitioner's registration under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Besides, the statutory remedies that were available to the petitioner, at present, one year has passed since the impugned order came into existence.
4. Under taxation statues, that too in respect of registration matters, unexplained delay may remain fatal to the proceedings. Here, facts have been pleaded that the petitioner was not aware of the impugned order. Prima facie Covid-19 circumstances cannot be cited to seek condonation of delay in the present case, where the impugned order itself came to be passed on 6.4.2023.
5. In view of above, we do not find any good ground to offer interference claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to avail his statutory remedies available under law.
7. In case, any such appeal is filed, the same may be dealt with and decided on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by any of the observations made by this Court.
Order Date :- 18.3.2024 CS/-
(Surendra Singh-I, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.)
2024-03-20T16:18:55+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. 240 of 2024
When was the decision delivered?
2024-03-18
Which GST provisions are identified in the case?
None
What was the recorded outcome?
Disposed
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.