SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1745

SHEKHAR B. SARAF
Iron Style – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner (Appeals) – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Akhil Agnihotri, Aditya Pandey
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Amit Mahajan

JUDGMENT

Shekhar B. Saraf, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

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 15, 2023 and the order dated October 11, 2023 passed in appeal under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

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 15, 2023. The relevant part of the said order is quoted below:

    "This has reference to your reply dated 06/03/2023 in response to the notice to show cause dated 03/02/2023 Whereas the undersigned has examined your reply and submission made at the time of hearing, and is of the opinion that your registration is liable to be cancelled for following reasons(s).

    1. Response not received."

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the first line, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top