^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

RASHID HUSAIN vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
(Allahabad High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

ARUN BHANSALI
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA

Pet. Counsel

Ajay Kumar Kashyap

Ravindra Kumar Rastogi

Res. Counsel

C.s.c.

Nimai Dass (acsc)

N.c. Gupta

Petitioner / Applicant	RASHID HUSAIN
Respondent	STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
Court	Allahabad High Court
State	Uttar Pradesh
Date	Apr 5, 2025
Order No.	Writ Tax No. - 1329 of 2025
Citation	2025(4) TAXREPLY 12900
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER 1. Having heard Sri Ajay Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Dass learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it remains undisputed that the petitioner's registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 was cancelled on 09.12.2021 w.e.f. 30.11.2021. It is not the case of the revenue that the said registration has ever been revived or that the petitioner ever sought revival of that registration. 2. In view of the above, it does merit acceptance that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive the show cause notices that may have been issued to the petitioner for 2018-19 through e-mode, preceding the adjudication order dated 27.04.2024 passed in pursuance thereto. 3. It is also not the case of the revenue that any physical/offline notice was issued to or served on the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed. 4. In view of peculiar facts noted above, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the petit....