Validity of GST cancellation show cause notice challenged for charge specificity and court refused pre decision interference, directing reconsideration.

Validity of a GST cancellation show cause notice was contested for failing to set out charge particulars and for seeking judicial intervention at the notice stage. The authority relied on Rule 21(e) and allegations of wrongful input tax credit with investigative annexures; the petitioner filed detailed replies demonstrating comprehension of the charges. The tribunal reasoned that annexed materials supplied factual particulars and that permitting the proper officer to consider the responses caused no substantial prejudice, so judicial interference at the notice stage was refused and the petition was dismissed with direction to decide the show cause notice on merits within two weeks.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notice in Form GST REG-17 for cancellation of registration is invalid for not containing the contents of the charges and whether interference by the High Court is warranted at the stage of issuance of the show cause notice.

Analysis: The impugned show cause notice alleges violation of Rule 21(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and annexes a communication from the Deputy Director, DGGI to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner conveying investigative materials. The petitioner submitted two substantive replies to the notice, including a reply dated 25.12.2025 addressing alleged availment of input tax credit from non-existent suppliers. The annexed supporting documents supply factual particulars of the allegations. Given that the petitioner has understood the charges and has filed detailed responses, no substantial prejudice arises from permitting the proper officer to consider the replies and decide in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The writ petition is dismissed; the proper officer is permitted to proceed on the basis of the replies to the show cause notice and decide the matter in accordance with law within two weeks, which is adverse to the petitioner.

---