JAB AND HARYANA AT v. Commissioner, ioner, Central Goods and Services Tax

CORAM : HO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA HO EPAK SIBAL PITA BANERJI Present : Mr Mr. Mukul Singla, Advocate for the for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kalra, Sr. Standing Couns Counsel Mr h V.C.) for the respondents. (Through V.C. DEEPAK SIBA SIBAL, J. (Oral) *** It is not disputed that before restro It i restrospective cancellation of the petitioner’s GS ’s GST registration through order d rder dated 11.02.2026, no show cause notice wa ice was served upon the petitioner, ner, intimating the petitioner that the respondent ndent-authorities intended to retros retrospectively cancel its GST registration.

#2. In light of the above undisputed f In uted fact, the petitioner’s case is covered in its its favour by the following observati servations in a recent judgment of a Division Benc Bench of this Court dated 20.02.202

02.2026 in CWP No.16770 of 2024 – M/s Bansal Ca al Casting vs. Union of India and ano d another:- “13. Undoubtedly, there is a p “13 cancellation of registration in ter Act Act, subject to the provisions a apposite to note that while suc cancellation of registration is apparent that such action can be t specific contingencies and that an o CG CGST Act must definitely refle cancellation with retrospective e basic, accepted and settled princip is enjoined upon to put the asses which is intended to be taken and a provision for retrospective terms of Section 29 of CGST ns as contained therein. It is such power of retrospective is definitely conferred, it is be taken only upon existence of t an order under Section 29(2) of reflect the reasons for such ve effect. Furthermore, it is a inciple that concerned authority ssessee to notice of the action and reasons or the premise on PRINCE SAINI 2026.05.08 09:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP- 1388 13889-2026 -2- be taken. Hon'ble the Supreme which such action is sought to be t. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Co Court in ORYX Fisheries Pvt. Lt held as under:- others, 2010(13) SCC 427, has held settled that a quasi-judicial "24. It is well set cting in exercise of its statutory authority, while acting airly and must act with an open power must act fairly ing a show cause proceeding. A mind while initiating ceeding is meant to give the show cause proceed reasonable person proceeded aking his objection against the opportunity of makin indicated in the notice.” proposed charges indi against a Thus a show cause no 14. 14. grounds or premises on which acti the present matters, it was incumb put petitioners to notice about th against them with retrospective e mention the material on which reli once mentioned in show cause n documents are attached, such m supplied to petitioners. se notice must contain the basic action is sought to be taken. In umbent upon authorities to have ut the proposal to take action ve effect and supply or at least reliance was placed. Moreover, se notice itself, that supporting ch material should have been (emphasis supplied)

#3. Learned counsel for the respond Lea spondents has not been able to distinguish the h the applicability of M/s Bansal Ca sal Casting’s case (supra) to the petitioner’s case ’s case.

#4. In the light of the above, the impug In impugned order dated 11.02.2026 (Annexure P-2 2), through which the petitioner’s ioner’s GST registration has been retrospectively ively cancelled, is set aside. Howeve owever, liberty is granted to the respondents to p ts to proceed afresh against the petitio petitioner, in accordance with law.

#5. The petition is allowed in the above The above terms. (DEEPAK JU JUDGE EPAK SIBAL) PITA BANERJI) (LAPITA JUDGE JU

06.05.2026 Prince PRINCE SAINI 2026.05.08 09:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Wh Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : Wh Yes/No Yes Yes/No Yes