Allahabad High Court
MOHD. NAZIMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
A statutory order rejecting an application must contain intelligible reasons; a silent order is void and must be set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Mohd. Nazim, challenged the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 24‑08‑2026 rejecting his application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration. The order merely directed him to produce documents and devices for verification but failed to record any substantive reasons for rejection. The Court noted that a similar order in Writ Tax No. 3687 of 2026 contained reasons, whereas the present order was silent and therefore violated the requirement of a reasoned decision. Relying on the principle that statutory authorities must give intelligible reasons when determining civil rights, the Court held that the impugned order was procedurally defective. Consequently, the order was set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent to pass a fresh order in compliance with law, and the writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- The order rejecting the revocation application is valid without recording reasons
- Whether a statutory authority must provide a reasoned order when rejecting an application for revocation of GST registration
Subjects
- GST
- Cancellation of registration
- Revocation of cancellation
- Reasoned order
- Procedural fairness
- Writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 3689 of 2026
Mohd. Nazim
.....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. The impugned order dated 24.08.2026 reads as below:-
FORM GST REG-05
[See Rule 9(4)]
Reference Number: ZA090826373693U Date: 24/08/2026
To
MOHD NAZIM
C/O NAAJAR, Bhojpur Dharampur Ahatmali, MOHALLA NAKKALAN, Moradabad,
Uttar Pradesh, 244001
GSTIN-09CQOPN8062R1ZM
Order of Rejection of Application for Revocation of Cancellation
This has reference to your reply filed vide ARN AA090826075184T dated 11/08/2026.
The reply has been examined and the same has not been found to be satisfactory 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
during the personal hearing, you would present the original copies of tax
invoices, transport receipts (builty), e-way bills, weighbridge slips, toll
WTAX No. 3689 of 2026
2
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 Ran Ganga Vihar, Moradabad, on 17.08.2026 for the
verification of records
Therefore, your application is rejected in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Vivek Kumar
Assistant Commissioner
Moradabad Sector-7
3. Vide separate order passed today, in almost similar circumstances,
Writ Tax No. 3687 of 2026 (Mohd. Qamar Vs. State of U.P. and
Another) has been disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail
statutory remedy of appeal. In that case, the order impugned referred to
attached document/order. Perusal of the same was found to contain the
reasons for rejection of the application seeking revocation of cancellation
of registration in case of Mohd. Qamar (supra).
4. However, as extracted above, the order impugned in the present case,
though dated 24.08.2026, records absolutely no reason. That defect on the
first page of the impugned order passed in case of Mohd. Qamar (supra)
has been noticed (in that case as well).
5. However, occasioned by reasons assigned in the documents attached to
such order, the writ petition filed by Mohd. Qamar has been disposed of
with a direction to that petitioner to file an appeal. That course is not
permissible in this case, inasmuch as absolutely no reasons have been
recorded in the present case. There is no attached order.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 24.08.2026 is set aside
and the matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order
strictly in accordance with law. Again, respondent no. 2 is warned to
remain cautious and careful while passing such orders. An order passed
WTAX No. 3689 of 2026
3
determining civil rights of the parties must not only be speaking but
intelligible, as well. Careless/reckless exercise of powers by statutory
authorities not only leads to frivolous litigation but also causes distress to
the affected parties. Here, occasioned by the careless actions of the
respondents, petitioner has been forced to file two writ petitions. That is
not desirable.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
(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…