TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioners by respondent No. 2 for cancellation of registration under Rule 21(a) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (herein after also referred SGST Rules, 2017). He would state that though seven days' time was granted to the petitioners to file reply but date and time for personal hearing were not specifically mentioned in the said show-cause notices. He would submit that in WP(T) No. 171 of 2025, one of the directors, namely Shri Ankit Singh was arrested on 20.8.2025 and was released on bail on 17.10.2025 and in between, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned orders and canceled the GST registration of both the companies. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that in the show-cause notices issued on 19.10.2025 & 21.8.2025 there was no whisper with regard to retrospective cancellation of the GST registration but in the final order the respondent No. 2, cancelled the GST registration of petitioners with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of issuance of the show-cause notices. He would submit that the final orders passed by respondent No. 2 traveled beyond the contents of show-cause notices, therefore, the show-cause notices and the final order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the decision was taken by respondent No. 2 strictly in accordance with law. It is also argued that there is efficacious alternative remedy to prefer an appeal according to provisions of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. They would submit that the petitioners also have the remedy to prefer an application for revocation of cancellation of registration before respondent No. 2. It is also argued that the writ petitions are not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, vs. Chhabil Dass Agrawal, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603. Reliance has also placed on the judgment of this Court in the matter of M/s Shubham Sales Through Proprietor vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., in WPT No. 130 of 2025, wherein writ petition challenging cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to prefer an appeal to take recourse to law. 6. In the matter of Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. And Another vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3355, it is held that the petitioner company failed to challenge the show-cause notice at the ea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jurisdiction [Note.-Your registration stands suspended with effect from ................. (date).] 10. A bare reading of above quoted provision would make it clear that the authority concern has to assign reasons for cancellation of registration. Further, the authority has to grant seven working days time to file a reply to show-cause and at the same time, is under obligation to afford an opportunity of personal hearing by specifying date and time. In the show-cause notices issued by respondent No. 2 dated 19.10.2025 and 21.8.2025, though seven days' time was granted to file reply but date and time granting opportunity of personal hearing was not specified and thus, show-cause notices were issued in contravention to the provisions of REG-17. 11. According to Rule 25 of Rules, 2017, it is necessary to upload the physical verification report alongwith other documents including photographs on the common portal within a period of 15 working days following the date of such verification. 12. Rule 25 is reproduced herein below: "25. Physical verification of business premises in certain cases.-Where the proper officer is satisfied that the physical verifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able to him before the Council. Any insufficiency, it is said, can be cured by resort to such appeal. Learned counsel apparently has in mind the view taken in some cases that an appeal provides an adequate remedy for a defect in procedure during the original proceeding. Some of those cases are mentioned in Sir William Wades erudite and classic work on "Administrative Law". But as that learned author observes, "in principle there ought to be an observance of natural justice equally at both stages", and If natural justice is violated at the first stage, the right of appeal is not so much a true right of appeal as a corrected initial hearing: instead of fair trial followed by appeal, the procedure is reduced to unfair trial followed by fair trial. And he makes reference to the observations of Megarry J. in Leary v. National Union of Vehicle Builders, [1971] 1 Ch. Treating with another aspect of the point, that learned Judge said: "If one accepts the contention that a defect of natural justice in the trial body can be cured by the presence of natural justice in the appellate body, this has the result of depriving the member of his right of appeal from the exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (See: State of U.P. vs. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433; Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107; State of H.P. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499)." 16. Thus, there is no bar to entertain a writ petition where there is violation of principle of natural justice or the order passed by the authority concerned is ultra vires as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95. Para 6 is reproduced herein below: "6. At the end of the last century, this Court in paragraph 15 of the its decision reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others) carved....