GST Registration Cannot Be Cancelled Without Specific Allegations: Court Restores Business Status After Vague Notices

The HC quashed the order dated 10.08.2021 cancelling the applicant's registration under GGST Act. The Court found both show cause notices (dated 15.06.2021 and 28.07.2021) and the impugned order to be impermissibly vague. The first notice alleged non-functioning at principal place of business while the second claimed registration was obtained through fraud. Following precedent in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works, the Court restored the applicant's registration while directing the department to proceed strictly in accordance with law if it wished to take further action.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to cancellation of registration under GGST Act based on show cause notices dated 15.06.2021 and 28.07.2021, legality of impugned order dated 10.08.2021, relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The writ applicant, engaged in bullion and agricultural commodities trading, challenged the cancellation of registration under the GGST Act based on show cause notices dated 15.06.2021 and 28.07.2021. The first notice cited non-functioning at the principal place of business, while the second mentioned registration obtained through fraud or suppression of facts. The final order dated 10.08.2021 cancelled the registration, citing lack of response to the show cause notice. The applicant was represented by learned Senior Counsel and advocate, while the respondents were represented by the learned AGP.

The Court noted that no action was taken after the first show cause notice, leading to the issuance of a fresh notice on 28.07.2021. The final order dated 10.08.2021 cancelled the registration, stating non-receipt of a reply to the show cause notice. The Court found the show cause notices and the impugned order to be vague, referencing a previous decision in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works vs. State of Gujarat & 2 Ors., which covered similar issues.

In light of the vagueness of the notices and order, the Court allowed the writ application, quashing the impugned order and restoring the registration. The Court directed the department to proceed strictly in accordance with the law, considering the observations made in the previous case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works. Direct service of the judgment was permitted for compliance.

Therefore, the Court's decision favored the writ applicant, setting aside the cancellation of registration and emphasizing the need for proper legal procedures to be followed by the department in such matters.

---