<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (2) TMI 1149 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787001</link>
    <description>The HC found the show-cause notice legally deficient for failing to disclose material particulars (tax period, invoices, suppliers, quantification), preventing a meaningful response and violating principles of natural justice, and therefore set it aside. The cancellation order was quashed for being mechanically dictated by an investigative request without independent application of mind to satisfy jurisdictional facts under the statutory scheme. The rejection of revocation was held non speaking and pre determined because it reproduced investigative conclusions without independent reasoning addressing the statutory threshold, so registration was restored and fresh proceedings ordered with a detailed notice and opportunity to respond.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2026 08:36:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=887714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 1149 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787001</link>
      <description>The HC found the show-cause notice legally deficient for failing to disclose material particulars (tax period, invoices, suppliers, quantification), preventing a meaningful response and violating principles of natural justice, and therefore set it aside. The cancellation order was quashed for being mechanically dictated by an investigative request without independent application of mind to satisfy jurisdictional facts under the statutory scheme. The rejection of revocation was held non speaking and pre determined because it reproduced investigative conclusions without independent reasoning addressing the statutory threshold, so registration was restored and fresh proceedings ordered with a detailed notice and opportunity to respond.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>