Case Details: Ram Ashish vs. Union of India (2025) 36 Centax 380 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Madhu Jain, JJ.
- Bharat Singh, Adv. for the Petitioner.
- Akshay Amritanshu, Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms Drishti Rawal, Abhay Nair, Mayur Goyal, Sarthak Srivastava, Ms Harshita Verma, Ms Vinita Sejwal, Tushar Upadhyay, Advs. & Mohit K. Mudgal, SPC for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, a petitioner-assessee, was issued a first show-cause notice for cancellation of GST registration, to which a reply was filed, and the proceedings were thereafter dropped. Subsequently, another show-cause notice was issued; however, the assessee did not file a reply, pursuant to which the proper officer cancelled the registration retrospectively under Section 29 of the CGST Act, read with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules and the corresponding provisions of the Delhi GST Act and Delhi GST Rules. The assessee’s application for revocation of cancellation was rejected. The assessee submitted that retrospective cancellation of registration was not tenable since the show-cause notice did not propose or contemplate cancellation with retrospective effect, and further contended that although an appeal had been filed against the cancellation order, the same was not being decided, thereby causing irreparable prejudice to its business activities. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that it was a settled position of law that where a show-cause notice did not contemplate retrospective cancellation of registration, the final order could not cancel the registration retrospectively. The Court interpreted Section 29 of the CGST Act and Rule 22 of the CGST Rules to require a clear indication in the show-cause notice if retrospective cancellation was intended. Applying the law to the facts, the Court found that the cancellation order had exceeded the scope of the show-cause notice. However, noting that a statutory appeal had already been filed, the Court directed the concerned appellate authority to decide the appeal after granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and accordingly remanded the matter.
List of Cases Cited
- Akash Bansal v. Superintendent — (2025) 33 Centax 410 (Del.) — Referred [Paras 8, 9]
