Retrospective Cancellation requires express notice and supplied supporting material; otherwise cancellation and cryptic orders are unsustainable.

Retrospective cancellation of GST registration requires express proposal in the show cause notice and reasons in the order; absent notice proposing retrospective effect or supplied/identified supporting material, retrospective cancellation cannot be mechanically applied and is unsustainable. Proceedings are vitiated where supporting documents referred to in the notice were not furnished or identified, denying a meaningful opportunity to respond. A cancellation order must be speaking and demonstrate application of mind by recording factual and legal reasons; cryptic or non-speaking orders fail procedural fairness. Authorities may re proceed only after proper notice, supply of material and an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether registration can be cancelled retrospectively when the show cause notice does not propose retrospective cancellation; (ii) Whether proceedings are vitiated where supportive documents mentioned in the show cause notice were not supplied to the taxpayer; (iii) Whether an order of cancellation that is cryptic and non-speaking is sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether registration can be cancelled retrospectively when the show cause notice does not propose retrospective cancellation.

Analysis: Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits retrospective cancellation subject to the conditions within the provision. An order cancelling registration with retrospective effect must reflect the reasons and contingencies relied upon and the show cause notice must put the taxpayer on notice of the intention to cancel retrospectively; absent such proposal or material, retrospective cancellation cannot be mechanically applied.

Conclusion: Retrospective cancellation is not sustainable where the show cause notice does not propose retrospective cancellation and the order does not disclose reasons for retrospective effect; conclusion favours the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings are vitiated where supportive documents mentioned in the show cause notice were not supplied to the taxpayer.

Analysis: A show cause notice that refers to attached supporting material must either supply that material or identify the material on which action is proposed so that the taxpayer can meaningfully respond; failure to supply or identify such material undermines the fairness of the proceedings.

Conclusion: Proceedings are vitiated by non-supply of supportive documents; conclusion favours the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether an order of cancellation that is cryptic and non-speaking is sustainable.

Analysis: An order exercising the power under Section 29 must record application of mind and reasons that disclose the factual basis and legal justification for cancellation; an order that is cryptic, lacks reference to material relied upon and does not demonstrate due application of mind is unsustainable.

Conclusion: A cryptic and non-speaking cancellation order is unsustainable; conclusion favours the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The cancellation order is set aside and respondent authorities are granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, including retrospective cancellation only after serving proper notice, supplying supporting material and affording an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An order under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cancelling registration with retrospective effect must be reasoned and the show cause notice must propose the retrospective action and supply or identify the material relied upon; absent these, retrospective cancellation and cryptic non-speaking orders are unsustainable.

---