Allahabad High Court
MOHD. QAMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of, with the petitioner directed to file an appeal against the order within two weeks, and the court refrains from adjudicating the factual dispute.
Summary
The petitioner, Mohd. Qamar, sought revocation of a cancellation of his GST registration dated 17 July 2026. After an earlier writ petition was disposed, he applied on 11 August 2026, and the respondent issued a show‑cause notice on 14 August directing him to produce original documents and electronic devices used for generating invoices and e‑way bills. The petitioner appeared, produced paper documents but could not produce the laptops or mobiles, claiming they belonged to former employees. The adjudicating authority drew an adverse inference and rejected the revocation application, issuing an order that was undated and inadequately reasoned. The High Court held that the petition could not be entertained on the factual dispute and directed the petitioner to file an appeal against the order within two weeks, disposing of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the undated and unreasoned order rejecting the revocation application is valid for purposes of the writ petition.
- Whether the petitioner’s failure to produce electronic devices justifies the adverse inference drawn by the adjudicating authority.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to appeal the order and the appropriate time frame for such appeal.
- Whether the court should adjudicate the factual dispute concerning the production of devices.
Subjects
- GST
- registration cancellation
- revocation
- show cause notice
- procedural fairness
- appeal
- high court
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 3687 of 2026
Mohd. Qamar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Prakash Mathur
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 39
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Prakash Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Order impugned is the order passed by respondent no. 2 on the
application dated 11.08.2026 filed by the petitioner, seeking revocation of
the earlier order dated 17.07.2026 whereby the petitioner's registration
had been cancelled.
3. Aggrieved by order dated 17.07.2026, the petitioner had approached
this Court by means of earlier writ petition being Writ Tax No. 3402 of
2026, Mohd. Qamar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another. It was
disposed of vide order dated 10.08.2026, leaving it open to the petitioner
to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration.
4. In compliance to the order dated 10.08.2026, the petitioner had applied
on 11.08.2026, seeking revocation of the order dated 17.07.2026.
Consequently, on 14.08.2026, a notice was issued to the petitioner by
respondent no. 2, requiring him to appear on 17.08.2026 and to make the
following compliance:-
"2. Any Supporting Document - Others (Please specify) - Therefore, you are directed to
bring the aforementioned documents, as well as the devices used to capture the
loading/unloading photographs and the laptops or computers used to generate the bills
and e-way bills, to Room No. 92 of the State Tax (SGST) Office at Ram Ganga Vihar,
Moradabad, on 17.08.2026 for the verification of records."
WTAX No. 3687 of 2026
2
5. It is the petitioner's own case that he had appeared and produced
evidence in the shape of original tax invoices, photographs etc. At the
same time, the petitioner maintained, that he could not produce the
electronic devices such as laptops and computers, before the respondent
no. 2. He explained - those laptops and other devices belonged to its
unnamed employees. They had since left his employment. Therefore, the
petitioner was unable to comply with the directions issued.
6. Though, the petitioner has not made any recital in that regard, plain
reading of the order (undated) order impugned in these proceedings
reveals that in response to the petitioner's application dated 11.08.2026, a
notice was issued to him on 14.08.2026, fixing dated 17.08.2026. That
order further records that on 17.08.2026, the petitioner had assured the
respondent no. 2 that he would produce the electronic devices and mobile
phones on 19.08.2026. However, no device was produced on 19.08.2026.
Whether that statement recorded in the order is correct or not, cannot be
adjudicated in these proceedings.
7. Suffice to note that upon consideration of reply furnished and in
absence of electronic devices produced by the petitioner, adverse
inference was drawn by the Adjudicating Authority. The only error that
exists in the order is - it is neither dated nor it has been structured or
reasoned appropriately. For ready reference, the first page of the order is
reads as below:-
Form GST REG-23
[See Rule 23(3)]
Reference No.: ZA090826136272D Date: 14/08/2026
To
MOHD QAMAR
SABJI MANDI CHAURAHA, BHOJPUR, BHOJPUR DHARAMPUR, Moradabad, Uttar
Pradesh, 244001
GSTIN: 09AADPQ7977KIZT
Application Reference Number (ARN): AA0908260749795 Date: 11/08/2026
Show Cause Notice for rejection of application for revocation of cancellation of
registration
This has reference to your application dated 11/08/2026 regarding revocation of
WTAX No. 3687 of 2026
3
cancellation of registration. Your application has been examined and the same is liable to
be rejected for the following reasons:
1. Reason for revocation of cancellation - Others (Please specify) You have
filed an online application for revocation, in which it was stated that ed that
during the personal hearing, you would present the original cropses of tax
invoices, transport receipts (builty), e-way bills, weighbridge slips, toll
plaza payment receipts, bank account statements, and photographs related
to loading and unloading for verification
2. Any Supporting Document - Others (Please specify) - Therefore, you are
directed to bring the aforementioned documents, as well as the devices used
to capture the loading/unloading photographs and the laptops or computers
used to generate the bills and e-way bills, to Room No. 92 of the State Tax
(SGST) Office at Ram Ganga Vihar, Moradabad, on 17.08.2026 for the
verification of records
You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the notice within seven working days from the
date of service of this notice.
You are hereby directed to appear before the undersigned on 17/08/2026 at 11:00
If you fail to furnish a reply within the stipulated date or fail to appear for personal hearing
on the appointed date and time, the case will be decided ex parte on the basis of available
records and on merits.
Kindly refer the supportive document attached for case specific details.
Vivek Kumar
Assistant Commissioner
Moradabad Sector-7
8. On a first reading, if one were to miss - the last/single sentence
paragraph, on the one page of that order, it gives an impression that the
order is neither dated not reasoned. In fact, the recital contained on the
first page is unintelligible. It does not record either the fact of compliance
made by the petitioner on 17.08.2026 nor it records the failure on the part
of the petitioner to produce the electronic devices on 19.08.2026, nor it
records any reason for the conclusion drawn.
9. For reason of that blunder - on part of respondent no. 2, time of the
Court has been consumed, to ascertain the real reasons that have been
recorded, on the next pages.
10. That approach of the respondent no. 2 is found to be casual. He is
WTAX No. 3687 of 2026
4
advised to remain more careful while passing orders in such proceedings.
11. As to the order to be passed with reference to the petitioner, in face of
statutory remedy of appeal available, both against the order of
cancellation and now against the order (undated) impugned in this writ
petition, considering the fact that the petitioner claims that the order was
served on him on 22.08.2026, first, the date of the order may be treated to
be 22.08.2026 only. Accordingly, the petitioner may approach the appeal
forum against that order and the order dated 17.07.2026. If such appeal is
filed within a period of two weeks from today, the same may be dealt
with and decided, as expeditiously as possible, without allowing any
undue or long adjournment.
12. As to the further submission that the fact dispute considered by the
respondent no. 2 is not related to the present petitioner, we are disinclined
to adjudicate the fact dispute. All facts may remain open to be contested
before the Appeal Authority.
13. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
September 9, 2026
#Vikram/-
Digitally signed by :-
VIKRAM GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…