TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1149
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ST. Mr. S Kakati, learned counsel is also present representing the respondent No. 1. 2. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the matter in its entirety, the instant writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself. 3. The petitioner challenges the show-cause notice dated 10.09.2025 issued by the Proper Officer, the order dated 25.08.2025 cancelling the GST registration, and the order dated 31.10.2025 rejecting the application for revocation of the order cancelling the registration. 4. The notice dated 10.09.2025 was issued by the Proper Officer proposing cancellation of GST registration under Rule 21(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, read with Section 16 of the CGST Act. 5. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is liable to be rejected for the reason cited in the aforesaid show-cause notice dated 26.09.2025, which is quoted hereinbelow: "Reason for revocation of cancellation-Others (Please specify)-As per DGGI interim investigation report, the applicant has availed ITC of 8.26 Cr. Without the same being reflected in GSTR-2B. No evidence submitted, condition of 16(2) has been followed. Application for Revocation of Cancellation under Rule 21(e) is liable to be rejected." 12. Even then, the petitioner submitted a reply on 03.10.2025, which was rejected by the impugned communication dated 31.10.2025, recording the following reasons: "Reason for revocation of cancellation -Others (Please specify)- As per DGGI interim investigatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen examined in sequence, they disclose not an independent exercise of statutory discretion, but a mechanical endorsement of an investigative dictum. 18. The foundation of the impugned action is a communication dated 08.08.2025, by the Joint Director requesting the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Guwahati, to cancel the petitioner's GST registration. 19. The undisputed record authored by the GST authorities makes it abundantly clear that such a request was made at a stage when the investigation was ongoing. 20. The statute does not contemplate that a quasi-judicial authority, while exercising its power under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 21(e) of the CGST Rules, 2017, acts at the dictate of an investigating wing. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... furnish an effective response. 28. The said objection, in the opinion of this Court, strikes at the heart of natural justice. 29. An opportunity of hearing is not an empty formality; it must be meaningful. The failure to disclose the basic material on which the authority proposes to act renders the notice arbitrary and unsustainable. 30. More fundamentally, the sequence of events portrays predetermination. 31. The order of cancellation dated 25.08.2025 was issued in response to an investigative request dated 08.08.2025. 32. There is nothing on record to indicate that the proper officer independently evaluated the material or formed a satisfaction based on reasons of his own. 33. The law, in this regard, is well settled. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A quasi-judicial order must speak for itself. It must demonstrate application of the mind to the objection raised. The repetition of the investigative allegation, as the sole ground of rejection, is indicative of the mechanical exercise of power. 42. Cancellation of registration is not to be used as a tool of coercion during investigation. 43. The act provides adequate machinery for assessment, adjudication and recovery. To cancel registration solely on the basis of an interim investigation report, without furnishing particulars and without independent satisfaction, amounts to obstructing the statutory process. 44. The cumulative effect of the circumstances and the reasons recorded hereinabove leads this Court to conclude the follo....