HC Sets Aside GST Registration Cancellation for Natural Justice Violation
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 30 May, 2026

Case Details: Sarda Eco Power Ltd. vs. State of Assam - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 738 (Gauhati)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Devashis Baruah, J.
-
GN Sahewalla, Sr. Adv. & M Sahewalla for the Petitioner.
-
B Gogoi, Addl. AG for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-company engaged in electrical contractor and electrician services challenged cancellation of its GST registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act on the ground that the show cause notice issued for non-filing of returns did not specify the default period and the cancellation order was passed without granting opportunity of hearing. The petitioner further contended that the cancellation order merely referred to non-submission of reply without assigning any reasons and that it could not seek revocation within the prescribed statutory period under Section 30 of the AGST Act. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in view of the earlier decision rendered in Motaleb Bhuyan v. State of Assam. It observed that though the petitioner had admittedly failed to furnish returns under Section 39 of the CGST Act, the show cause notice did not specify the period of default and the cancellation order was passed within thirty days without granting hearing or recording reasons except absence of reply. It further observed that such cancellation proceedings suffered from procedural infirmities and violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, it set aside the order cancelling GST registration and directed the petitioner to furnish all pending returns within thirty days, while clarifying that the petitioner would remain liable for payment of tax, interest, penalty and late fee in accordance with law.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Motaleb Bhuyan v. State of Assam [2025] 172 taxmann.com 554/97 GSTL 7 (Gauhati) (para 6) followed
List of Cases Referred to
- Motaleb Bhuyan v. State of Assam [2025] 172 taxmann.com 554/97 GSTL 7 (Gauhati) (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

CA | CS | CMA