TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 642
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner is a proprietorship concern registered under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (for short '2017 Act') with GSTIN 03B1YPS00099E1ZU and is engaged in business of trading of bar and rods of iron and non-alloy steel, ferrous waste scrap having its registered office at Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, Fatehgarh Sahib. It is further submitted that on 06.09.2024 petitioner uploaded application for amendment/change in registered address of petitioner - Firm. This application was filed online on GST portal. Copy of acknowledgment is attached alongwith writ petition as Annexure P-3. Pursuant thereto, Department issued notice dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) seeking filing of reply alongwith additional documents. It is submitted that petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. Short payment of tax has been noticed. 2. All the major suppliers of the taxpayer found cancelled suo-moto or suspended. 3. The taxpayer has not fulfilled the condition of Rule 86B of the CGST Rules, 2017. in light of the above and to curtail such fraudulent activities, the taxpayer's registration is hereby cancelled, with effective from their original date of registration." 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order indicates complete non-application of mind and has been passed, inter alia, on the grounds which were not even mentioned in the show cause notice. Without there being any proposal for retrospective cancellation of petitioner's registration in show cause, order dated 23.04.2025....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the writ petition while justifying passing of impugned order dated 23.04.2025, by submitting that registration of petitioner can be cancelled with retrospective effect in terms of Section 29 of CGST Act. 7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file with their able assistance. 8. Notice of motion was issued in this writ petition on 02.12.2025. Learned counsel for respondents had accepted notice and sought time to seek instructions/file reply. This writ petition was directed to be taken up along with CWP No. 16770 of 2024. It is pointed out that vide order dated 12.11.2025 in CWP No. 16770 of 2024 and conn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been considered by this Court in case of M/s Bansal Casting Vs. Union of India and others (supra). The questions as involved in the said writ petition were detailed as under:- "(i) whether registration of petitioner(s) under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short CGST/HGST Act) could have been cancelled with retrospective effect even though it is not so proposed in show case notice(s), Form GST-REG-17, issued to petitioners; (ii) whether proceedings are vitiated as supportive documents stated to be attached as per show causes notice(s) for case specific details were never supplied to petitioners and (iii) whether orders of Cancellation of Registration ultimatel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....making his objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice. 14. Thus a show cause notice must contain the basic grounds or premises on which action is sought to be taken. In the present matters, it was incumbent upon authorities to have put petitioners to notice about the proposal to take action against them with retrospective effect and supply or at least mention the material on which reliance was placed. Moreover, once mentioned in show cause notice itself that supporting documents are attached, such material should have been supplied to petitioners. 15. Delhi High Court in the case of Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax (CGST), South Delhi, (2024) 167 taxmann.com 302 (Delhi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order. There is no reference to the material on the basis of which decision to cancel registration has been taken, much less a discussion on any aspect. It is, thus, evident that impugned order dated 29.08.2025 is not sustainable. 14. Objection regarding alternate remedy as raised by respondents does not hold any merit as has been held by this Court in case of M/s Bansal Casting Vs. Union of India and others (Supra), to the effect that matter like the present would fall within the exceptions as carved out by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others, 2013 AIR Supreme Court 781 and Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1, wh....