TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 643
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gistered under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (for short '2017 Act') with GSTIN 03AARFB7832Q1ZT and is engaged in business of manufacture of bar and rods of iron and non-alloy steel, ferrous waste scrap having its registered office at Alour, Khanna, Ludhiana. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that show cause notice dated 12.11.2024 was issued stating that petitioner's registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reasons :- "1. Rule 21(b)-person issues invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of the Act, or the rules made thereunder 2. Rule 21(e)-person avails ITC in violation of the provisions of section 16 of the Act or the rules made there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elhi), E-world Business Solutions (P.) Ltd. Vs. Superintendent Range, 94, Central Goods and Service Tax [2025] 178 taxmann.com 236 (Delhi), Ajay Gupta Vs. Sales Tax Officer [2025] 179 taxmann.com 18 (Delhi), Pooja Enterprises Vs. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato [2025] 177 taxmann.com 765 (Delhi), V.R. Impex Vs. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax [2025] 177 taxmann.com 492 (Delhi). Furthermore, impugned order dated 25.11.2024 is stated to be a cryptic and non-speaking one, without any reasoning or discussion regarding the grounds for cancellation. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner further relies upon decision dated 20.02.2026 of this Court in CWP No. 16770 of 2024 titled as M/s Bansal Casting versus Union of India and ano....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on this account. 9. It is a matter of record and not denied by learned counsel for the respondents that there is no proposal for retrospective cancellation of petitioner's registration in show cause notice dated 12.11.2024. It is further affirmed and verified that no documents whatsoever were ever supplied to petitioner on the basis of which impugned order dated 25.11.2024 was passed. 10. In the instant case, as noted in the foregoing paras, it is an undisputed fact that there was no proposal in the show cause notice for cancellation of registration of petitioner with retrospective effect. Furthermore, impugned order dated 25.11.2024 indeed does not indicate due application of mind by the appropriate authority. A perusal thereof indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ken only upon existence of specific contingencies and that an order under Section 29(2) of CGST Act must definitely reflect the reasons for such cancellation with retrospective effect. Furthermore, it is a basic, accepted and settled principle that concerned authority is enjoined upon to put the assessee to notice of the action which is intended to be taken and reasons or the premise on which such action is sought to be taken. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in ORYX Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, 2010 (13) SCC 427, has held as under :- "24. It is well settled that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating a show cause pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncellation makes it all the more vital that the order be reasoned and demonstrative of due application of mind. It is also necessary to observe that the mere existence of such a power would not in itself be sufficient to sustain its invocation. What we seek to emphasise is that the power to cancel retrospectively can neither be robotic nor routinely applied unless circumstances so warrant. When tested on the aforesaid precepts it becomes ex facie evident that the impugned order of cancellation cannot be sustained." 13. Perusal of impugned order dated 25.11.2024 does indicate non-application of mind and a dispensation which is not even envisaged in show cause notice dated 12.11.2024. It is incumbent upon appropriate Authority to consider ....