HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1457 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of limitation which was filed against the order of cancellation dated 03.07.2024 passed by the respondent No.4. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before cancellation of the registration. It is urged that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for the purpose of cancellation of the registration, which is dated 14.05.2024, a copy thereof has been brought on record as Annexure No.4. 4. It is further urged that a bare perusal of the aforesaid show cause notice, it would indicate that the petitioner was granted 30 days time to furnish reply, however, the petitioner was required to appear before the respondent No.4 on 11.06.2024 while the registration was suspended w.e.f. 14.05.2024. 5. The submission is that the petitioner was not aware of the aforesaid show cause notice coupled with the fact that time was granted to furnish Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S A.S.Enterprises Thru.Proprietor Archana Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) the reply within 30 days which would expire on 30.06.2024, but the date of personal hearing as indicated was 13.06.2024 prior to the date of filing of the response. In such circumstances, the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Tax No.303 of 2024 [Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr; 2024:AHC:38820-DB] was clearly attracted. It is further urged that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation alone. 6. Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-Revenue submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, however, he could not dispute the fact that the date as mentioned in show cause notice itself was prior to the date of furnishing of reply which is in teeth of the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court in Mahaveer Trading Company (supra) coupled with the fact that the appeal has been dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. 7. Since the aforesaid dictum is applicable in the present facts and circumstances, accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the orders dated 03.07.2024 & 19.11.2025 are accordingly quashed. 8. With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. 9. Matter is remanded to the assessing authority to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. December 2, 2025 Rakesh/- WTAX No. 1457 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench