Registration Cancellation Revoked As Hearing Was Adequate

Centax Editorial Board

January 20, 2026

• 2 min. read

Case Details: Sakshi Enterprises vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals) (2025) 37 Centax 326 (M.P.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Anand Pathak & Anil Verma, JJ.
S/Shri Ravi Chaudhary & Lalit Jain, Advs., for the Petitioner.
S/Shri Harshwardhan Topre, Himansu Guptas & Praveen Surange, Advs., for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner-assessee was registered under GST and was engaged in business activities but failed to file prescribed returns, which led the jurisdictional officer under CGST to issue a show cause notice proposing cancellation of registration on the ground of non-filing of returns. An order cancelling the registration was thereafter passed, following which the petitioner-assessee preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which came to be dismissed. The petitioner-assessee contended that the non-filing of returns occurred due to adverse family circumstances and asserted that sufficient opportunity of hearing had not been afforded before cancellation. It was further submitted that the petitioner-assessee was willing to file all pending returns and comply with statutory requirements, and sought restoration of registration so as to continue business activities within the GST framework. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the cancellation of registration was preceded by issuance of a show cause notice and followed by an appellate order, and therefore it could not be said that no opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner-assessee. The Court held that the statutory framework under Section 29 of the CGST Act and the Madhya Pradesh GST Act permits consideration of revocation where compliance deficiencies are subsequently addressed. It was held that the petitioner-assessee had expressed readiness to file all pending returns and fulfil statutory obligations, and that permitting restoration would enable continued participation in the tax regime while ensuring revenue compliance. The Court accordingly set aside the impugned orders and directed that, upon submission of pending returns for the period during which the registration stood cancelled, the competent authority shall consider the case for revocation of registration in accordance with law.