Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 66408 (ALL)

M/S TOMAR ENTERPRISES v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 OTHERS

WTAX/2830/2025 · 2025-08-10

Piyush Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135310 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2830 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Tomar Enterprises Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned ACSC for the State-respondents. 3. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by respondent no. 3 and the order dated 7.5.2025 passed by respondent no. 2 by which registration of the petitioner has been cancelled w.e. f. 31.8.2023 and appeal has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a proprietorship concern having GSTIN No. 09AJCPT1063D2ZD and engaged in the business of work contract and mainly provide his services to GAIL India Ltd. He submits that on 2.8.2023 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent no. 3 for cancellation of his registration with direction to file reply within 7 working days from the date of service of notice. He submits that due to personal difficulties as well as deaths of his father, mother and younger brother, respectively on 23.8.2024, 1.2.2025 and 4.2.2025, the petitioner/proprietor was in deep depression, therefore, he could not file the reply within time or look after the work of the firm but by the order dated 12.10.2023, the registration of the petitioner was cancelled without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order in appeal, which was rejected on technical grounds vide order dated 7.5.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the order has not passed on merit, the doctrine of merger will not be applicable. 6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgements of this Court in the case of M/s Shubham Steel Traders Vs. State of UP and another (Writ Tax No. 199 of 2024) Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:31108-DB, Jai Nath Rai Construction Vs. State of UP and others (Writ Tax No. 1307 of 2024) Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:149758 and M/s Surya Associates Vs. Union of India, (Writ Tax No. 1397 of 2024), Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:166791. 7. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 9. The record shows that registration of the petitioner has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 on the ground that no reply to the show cause notice has been submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner has categorically submitted that due to illness of the family members as well as subsequent deaths of father, mother and younger brother, the petitioner was in personal difficulty and also in deep depression, therefore, he could not pursue the case but as and when he came to know about the impugned order, he filed an appeal but the same has been dismissed on technical ground. 10. The issue is not res integra. This Court in the cases of Subham Steel Traders, (supra), Jai Nath Rai Construction (supra) and M/s Surya Associates (supra) has repeatedly held that if no reason has been given for cancelling the registration, the doctrine of merger will not be applicable. 11. The controversy raised by the petitioner in the present case is squarely covered with the decisions of this Court as referred herein above. Further learned ACSC also could not dispute the legal proposition with regard to the law laid down by this Court. 12. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. 13. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority. The petitioner is directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within four weeks from today and the adjudicating authority is directed to proceed de novo and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad