Case Details: Saurabh Sahu Versus State of Maharashtra (2025) 32 Centax 239 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
- Shri Nirmal Pagaria for the Petitioner.
- Ms Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. G.P. & Shri Aditya R. Deolekar, A.G.P. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a registered person in Maharashtra, was issued with a show-cause notice for cancellation of registration on the grounds that the registration was obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The notice directed the petitioner to furnish a reply within seven working days from the date of service of the notice. The petitioner contended that the show-cause notice was entirely vague and bereft of any particulars. Although a time limit was granted to file a reply, the notice did not specify the appointed date or time for the personal hearing. The matter reached the Bombay High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that merely quoting a section and alleging that registration has been obtained through fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts in a show-cause notice is never enough. The noticee must be given an idea of what the alleged fraud, misstatement, or suppression of facts was. Only then will the noticee be able to understand the allegations against them and respond effectively. In the instant case, the petitioner only received the show-cause notice, which was completely vague. Based on this, the petitioner could not have filed any effective reply or even known what the precise charge against him was. Any action based upon such a vague show-cause notice cannot be sustained because the same would be a product of a violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, the order for cancellation of registration was to be set aside.
List of Cases Cited
- Manek Steel LLP v. Union of India — [Writ Petition No. 7126 of 2025, dated 30-6-2025] — Referred [Para 15]
