GST cancellation procedure fails where hearing notice, verification upload, and natural justice requirements are not followed.

Mandatory GST cancellation procedure was held to require a notice stating the proposed grounds, a specified date and time for personal hearing, and compliance with the prescribed verification-record upload requirements. Because the show-cause notices did not fix a hearing date and time, and the final cancellation orders went beyond the notices by cancelling registration retrospectively, the proceedings were found contrary to Rule 22 and fairness. Non-uploading of the physical verification report and supporting documents on the common portal before the final orders further vitiated the action under Rule 25. The availability of an appellate remedy did not bar writ relief where the foundational procedure and natural justice were defective, so the notices and cancellation orders were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show-cause notices and cancellation orders were vitiated for want of a specified date and time for personal hearing and for travelling beyond the notices by cancelling registration retrospectively; (ii) Whether non-uploading of the physical verification report on the common portal rendered the proceedings invalid; (iii) Whether the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the show-cause notices and cancellation orders were vitiated for want of a specified date and time for personal hearing and for travelling beyond the notices by cancelling registration retrospectively.

Analysis: Rule 22(1) read with Form GST REG-17 requires the proper officer to state the reasons for proposed cancellation, grant seven working days to reply, and specify the date and time for personal hearing. The notices issued in the present matters granted time to reply but did not specify any hearing date and time. The final cancellation orders also proceeded to cancel registration retrospectively, although the notices did not disclose such a proposal. The proceedings were therefore not in conformity with the prescribed procedure and offended fairness in the decision-making process.

Conclusion: The notices and the cancellation orders were invalid on this ground, in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether non-uploading of the physical verification report on the common portal rendered the proceedings invalid.

Analysis: Rule 25 requires the physical verification report, along with photographs and connected documents, to be uploaded on the common portal within fifteen working days of verification. The record showed that the verification was conducted but the report and supporting documents were not uploaded before the impugned final orders were passed. Since the cancellation was founded on that verification, non-compliance with Rule 25 materially affected the legality of the proceedings.

Conclusion: The proceedings were vitiated for breach of Rule 25, in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: Though an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was available, the petitioners were denied a meaningful opportunity to respond to the show-cause notices and to place material before the assessing authority. In such circumstances, the rule of alternative remedy did not bar writ interference, particularly where the foundational proceedings themselves were contrary to the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice. The existence of an appellate remedy could not cure the defect at the first stage.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable, in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The impugned show-cause notices and the consequential cancellation orders were quashed, and fresh proceedings were left open to be initiated in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where mandatory notice requirements and the opportunity of personal hearing under the GST cancellation procedure are not complied with, and the foundational verification record is not duly uploaded as required, the proceedings are vitiated and the alternative remedy rule does not preclude writ relief.

---