GST registration cancellation must follow proper notice and reasons; procedural defects and natural justice violations can override delay.

Cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act and Rule 22 cannot stand unless the show cause notice discloses the material basis of default, gives a meaningful opportunity to reply, and culminates in a reasoned speaking order. A notice that merely states registration is liable to be cancelled, without identifying the relevant default period or grounds, violates statutory procedure and natural justice; non-filing of a reply or return delay does not cure the defect. The writ was not rejected for delay because the challenge went to the legality of the cancellation itself, and the cancellation order was quashed with the matter restored to the show cause stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the cancellation of GST registration could be sustained when the show cause notice and the cancellation order did not disclose adequate reasons and did not afford an effective opportunity of reply; (ii) whether the writ petition was liable to be declined on the ground of delay.

Issue (i): whether the cancellation of GST registration could be sustained when the show cause notice and the cancellation order did not disclose adequate reasons and did not afford an effective opportunity of reply.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 22 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires a proper show cause notice, a meaningful opportunity to respond, and an order in the prescribed form setting out the basis for cancellation. A notice that merely states that registration is liable to be cancelled, without disclosing the relevant period of default, does not enable the noticee to meet the case against him. The cancellation order also failed to comply with the requirement of a reasoned and speaking order, and the delay in filing returns or non-filing of reply did not cure the procedural defect. In the circumstances, the cancellation was held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The cancellation of GST registration was not sustained and the impugned cancellation order was set aside in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition was liable to be declined on the ground of delay.

Analysis: Although the writ petition was filed after a substantial lapse of time, the challenge went to the legality of the cancellation order itself on the ground of breach of statutory procedure and natural justice. The Court treated that defect as outweighing the delay in approaching the writ court.

Conclusion: The plea of delay did not defeat the writ petition.

Final Conclusion: The cancellation order was quashed, the matter was restored to the stage of the show cause notice, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory response contemplated by the GST framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Cancellation of GST registration must be preceded by a proper show cause notice and a reasoned order conforming to the statutory procedure; a notice or order that omits the material basis of default violates natural justice and cannot stand.

---