The Allahabad High Court has set aside the cancellation of GST registration of M/s Implex Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., a real estate company, after finding that the authorities acted without following due process and violated the principles of natural justice.
The bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal held that the cancellation order, as well as the subsequent appellate order, suffered from serious procedural defects and lacked proper reasoning, thereby infringing upon the petitioner’s right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The petitioner company, M/s Implex Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. had challenged two orders — one dated 16.05.2023, cancelling its GST registration for non-filing of returns for six months, and another dated 31.03.2025, dismissing its appeal as time-barred. The company argued that the show cause notice issued on 12.04.2023 was defective as it neither mentioned the name nor the designation of the proper officer, making it impossible to identify the authority before whom it was to appear.
It was also submitted that the company became aware of the cancellation only in February 2025, and that no opportunity of personal hearing had been given before passing the adverse order.
The Court found that the show cause notice failed to disclose essential details and that the cancellation was done ex parte without giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond. Such a process, the Court observed, was contrary to the principles of natural justice and the mandate of Article 14 guaranteeing fairness in administrative actions.
Justice Agrawal referred to earlier decisions of the High Court in Surya Associates v. Union of India (2024), M.Y. Ent Bhatta v. State of U.P. (2025), and One Place Infrastructure v. State of U.P. (2025), where similar orders of GST registration cancellation were quashed for lack of proper reasoning and procedural fairness.
The Court also cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) to emphasize that quasi-judicial orders affecting fundamental rights can be directly challenged under Article 226 when passed without due application of mind.
Holding the orders unsustainable, the Court quashed both the cancellation and the appellate orders and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. The authority has been directed to issue a fresh, reasoned show cause notice within one week and provide the company an opportunity to reply within 21 days. Thereafter, a reasoned and speaking order must be passed within two weeks, after granting a personal hearing.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Implex Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Tax No. 1915 of 2025
Date: October 7, 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Nishant Mishra, Parinita Gupta
Counsel For Respondent: CSC
