Pappu Yadav v. Union Of India And 2 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 107

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner challenges the order in original for cancellation of registration dated March 25, 2023 passed by the respondent No.3 and the order passed in appeal dated December 29, 2023 by the respondent No.2/Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal), Varanasi under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Operative disposition: In light of the above, I am of the view that the orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order in original dated March 25, 2023 and the appellate order dated December 29, 2023 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to file its reply to the show cause notice within three weeks from date and the adjudicating authority is directed to proceed de novo and pass…
• 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. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner challenges the order in original for cancellation of registration dated March 25, 2023 passed by the respondent No.3 and the order passed in appeal dated December 29, 2023 by the respondent No.2/Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal), Varanasi under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

"This has reference to your reply dated 16/02/2023 in response to the notice to show cause dated 15/01/2023

found with the appellate order dismissing the appeal as Appellate 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 07.01.2023, which does not disclose any application of mind. He, thus, argues that the quasi judicial order which has an adverse effect on the right of the petitioner to run business as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the same has been done 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. He further argues that as the appeal has not been decided on merit, the doctrine of merger will have no application and it is only the order dated 07.01.2023 which affects the petitioner and as the same is devoid of any reasons, the same can be challenged before this Court as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and Ors. - (1998) 8 SCC 1.

8. In the present case from the perusal of the order dated 07.01.2023, 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 07.01.2023 (Annexure - 2) is set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed.

9. It is, however, directed that the petitioner shall file reply to the show-cause notice within a period of three weeks from today. The Adjudicating Authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner, Gonda shall proceed to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after considering whatever defence he may take."

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order for cancellation of registration has been passed without any application of mind whatsoever and the same is clear from the very first two lines of the order dated March 25, 2023. The relevant part of the said order is quoted below:

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the first line, the order states that a reply was filed by the petitioner on February 16, 2023 whereas second line records that no reply was submitted. He relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Tax No.172 of 2023 titled as Surendra Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and others decided on August 23, 2023, wherein the Division Bench has held as follows:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon a coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Tax No.1476 of 2022 titled as M/s Namo Narayan Singh v. State of U.P. and others decided on October 10, 2023 to emphasis the point that providing of reasons in order is of essence in judicial proceedings.

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

6. In the present case, the facts are similar to one in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case (supra), wherein the appeal was barred by time under Section 107 of the Act. However, the Division Bench in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case (supra) took into consideration the original order and set aside the same being non-reasoned and allowed the petitioner therein to file reply to the show cause notice.

7. In light of the above, I am of the view that the orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order in original dated March 25, 2023 and the appellate order dated December 29, 2023 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to file its reply to the show cause notice within three weeks from date and the adjudicating authority is directed to proceed de novo and pass order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Pappu Yadav v. Union Of India And 2 Others concerns issue and context: this is a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, wherein the petitioner challenges the order in original for cancellation of registration dated march 25, 2023 passed by the respondent no.3 and the order passed in appeal dated december 29, 2023 by the respondent no.2/additional commissioner, grade-ii (appeal), varanasi under section 107 of the uttar pradesh goods and services tax act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the act"). operative disposition: in light of the above, i am of the view that the orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside. accordingly, the order in original dated march 25, 2023 and the appellate order dated december 29, 2023 are quashed and set aside. the petitioner is directed to file its reply to the show cause notice within three weeks from date and the adjudicating authority is directed to proceed de novo and pass… 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. 413 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 is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner challenges the order in original for cancellation of registration dated March 25, 2023 passed by the respondent No.3 and the order passed in appeal dated December 29, 2023 by the respondent No.2/Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal), Varanasi under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Operative disposition: In light of the above, I am of the view that the orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order in original dated March 25, 2023 and the appellate order dated December 29, 2023 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to file its reply to the show cause notice within three weeks from date and the adjudicating authority is directed to proceed de novo and pass… Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 107—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 107 and the decision date 2024-03-19; 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 Pappu Yadav v. Union Of India And 2 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 413 of 2024, and the decision is dated 2024-03-19. 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 Shekhar B. Saraf,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 107. 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 107 — 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
• Sandeep Singhal v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Nitin Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others — Allahabad 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: PUBLISH_READY