GST Registration Cancellation Quashed for Vague SCN | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 26 June, 2026
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Smt. Sunita Rai vs. Union of India [2026] 187 taxmann.com 791 (Gauhati)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Manish Choudhury, J.
- Ms B. Sarma, Adv. for the Petitioner.
- B. Sharma, Central Govt. Counsel, S.C. Keyal, Sr. Counsel & Ms P. Upadhyay, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was a proprietor engaged in providing light motor vehicles on hire and was registered under the CGST Act and the Assam GST Act. A show-cause notice was issued proposing cancellation of the GST registration on the grounds of failure to furnish returns for six months, while also fixing a personal hearing and suspending the registration. The petitioner contended that the show-cause notice failed to specify the particular months or period for which returns had allegedly not been furnished, thereby depriving her of an effective opportunity to respond. It was submitted that the cancellation order issued merely stated “Others Remarks: taxpayer has not filed GSTR-3B returns and no reply SCN,” despite the accompanying Statement Table recording no tax, interest, penalty, fee or cess liability. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that Section 29 of the CGST Act and the Assam GST Act, read with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules and the Assam GST Rules, required strict compliance with the prescribed procedure for cancellation of GST registration. The Court held that the show-cause notice lacked material particulars and that the cancellation order in FORM GST REG-19 was non-speaking, contrary to the statutory requirement of recording reasons. It further held that non-submission of a reply did not absolve the jurisdictional officer under CGST from passing a reasoned order, as recording reasons formed part of the statutory mandate and the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned cancellation order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.
List of Cases Referred to
- Mohan Mech v. UOI [WP(C) No. 1215 of 2025, dated 18-3-2025] (para 6)
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
