Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Guru Pooran Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT TAX No. - 1252 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15081 (6 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.2

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1252 of 2007

Guru Pooran Singh ..... Petitioner


State of U.P & others ..... Respondents


Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J

Heard Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent.

Although in the writ petition number of issues have been raised but we propose to dispose of the writ petition on a short ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before cancelling the registration certificate under the U.P Trade Tax Act and also under the Central Sales Tax Act.

The petitioner is a Proprietorship firm and was granted registration both under the U.P Trade Tax as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. It appears that earlier also the registration certificate of the petitioner was cancelled for not making the deposit of the Trade Tax dues. Some provisional assessment orders were passed. The appeals against the provisional orders were allowed by the First Appellate Authority on the ground that the relevant financial year having been closed, the provisional assessment orders have lost their efficacy. The appeals having been allowed, the demand raised against the petitioner was consequently set aside.

In this view of the changed circumstances, the registration which was cancelled earlier was restored. Again for the Assessment Year 2007-2008 the authority concerned by the impugned order has cancelled the registration on 21.6.2007 on various grounds such as the petitioner has given the wrong particular of his address, as well as incorrect telephone number. It has also taken into consideration that petitioner is not doing any business and is abusing the registration obtained under the U.P Trade Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act. However, it is not necessary to examine those questions in view of the order which we propose to pass in the present writ petition.

A supplementary affidavit has been filed today wherein in paragraph 5 & 6, it has been stated that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity of hearing before cancelling the registration certificate. The submission is that the notice which was issued fixing 25.5.2007 was for a different purpose and that was not relateable to the proceedings for cancellation of the registration certificate. The learned counsel for the petitioner expressed his apprehension that application under section 30 of the U.P Trade Tax Act is not maintainable in such circumstances as an application under the Act can be filed in respect of an assessment order only. At this stage, the learned standing counsel accepted the suggestion given by the Court that an opportunity will be afforded to the petitioner provided the petitioner cooperates with the department and appears before the assessing authority and also produces the relevant material and record in support of his contention.

Be that as it may, since the impugned order was passed without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, we propose to direct the Assessing Authority to afford a fresh opportunity of hearing by way of last chance to the petitioner before taking the drastic step of cancellation of the registration both under the U.P Trade Tax Act as well as under Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to appear before the assessing authority along with the record and his reply treating the order dated 21.6.2007 as a show cause notice. Such authority shall reexamine the matter in the light of the submissions of the petitioner as well as the material produced by him on 17.9.2007. However, it will be open to the Assessing Authority to fix another date for hearing subject to his convenience in case 17.9.2007 is not convenient. It is expected that the authority concerned shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to file a certificate copy of this order before the authority concerned on or before 17.9.2007.

Subject to the aforesaid direction, the impugned order is set aside. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions stipulated above, the writ petitioner shall stand dismissed automatically.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petitioner is disposed of finally. No order as to costs.

Date 6.9.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.