Facts :The petitioners’ goods and vehicles were intercepted and detained under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act on allegations of undervaluation of goods in transit.Orders in Form GST MOV-06 and MOV-10 were issued proposing confiscation and penalty.Petitioners challenged the detention and confiscation proceedings as without jurisdiction and sought release of goods and vehicles.The matters involved multiple writ petitions raising a common issue regarding valuation of goods at the stage of interception.Court Decision:The Court held that at the stage of interception under Section 129, authorities cannot undertake determination of valuation of goods.Issues relating to valuation and tax liability must be examined by the assessing authority and not by officers at check post during transit.Confiscation or penalty merely on the ground of undervaluation of goods in transit is not a valid exercise of power under Section 129/130.The Court also held that one State’s authorities cannot levy penalty or confiscate goods for alleged tax evasion in another State.Accordingly, goods and vehicles seized under the impugned orders were directed to be released.Cases Referred:Alfa Group vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)K.P. Sugandam & Ors. vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.Pattal Andrea and Company vs Assistant Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.Panchi Trades vs State of GujaratShambu Saran Agarwal & Company vs Additional Commissioner Grade 5
Golden Traders & Others vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Others 16-02-2026
Facts :The petitioners’ goods and vehicles were intercepted and detained under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act on allegations of undervaluation of goods in transit.Orders in Form GST MOV-06 and MOV-10 were issued proposing confiscation and penalty.Petitioners challenged the detention and confiscation proceedings as without jurisdiction and sought release of goods and vehicles.The matters involved multiple writ petitions raising a common issue regarding valuation of goods at the stage of interception.Court Decision:The Court held that at the stage of interception under Section 129, authorities cannot undertake determination of valuation of goods.Issues relating to valuation and tax liability must be examined by the assessing authority and not by officers at check post during transit.Confiscation or penalty merely on the ground of undervaluation of goods in transit is not a valid exercise of power under Section 129/130.The Court also held that one State’s authorities cannot levy penalty or confiscate goods for alleged tax evasion in another State.Accordingly, goods and vehicles seized under the impugned orders were directed to be released.Cases Referred:Alfa Group vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)K.P. Sugandam & Ors. vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.Pattal Andrea and Company vs Assistant Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.Panchi Trades vs State of GujaratShambu Saran Agarwal & Company vs Additional Commissioner Grade 5
Facts The petition challenged a show cause notice demanding GST of ₹59,40,000 plus interest on transfer of leasehold rights in MIDC land. The petitioner had assigned leasehold rights for ₹3.30 crore with MIDC’s consent and paid additional premium. Authorities treated the transaction as “supply of services” under Section 7 read with Schedule II and classified it as taxable miscellaneous services. Court DecisionThe Court held that assignment of leasehold rights amounts to transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property and not a supply of services. It found that the transaction was neither lease nor sub-lease and the petitioner’s rights stood extinguished upon assignment. The activity lacked the essential element of being in the course or furtherance of business required under Section 7 of the CGST Act. Classification under “other miscellaneous services” was rejected as inapplicable. Accordingly, the show cause notice and adjudication order were quashed and set aside. Cases Referred• Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Union of India, (2025) 170
Vidarbha Beverages & Ors. vs. State Tax Officer & Ors. 13-02-2026
Facts The petition challenged a show cause notice demanding GST of ₹59,40,000 plus interest on transfer of leasehold rights in MIDC land. The petitioner had assigned leasehold rights for ₹3.30 crore with MIDC’s consent and paid additional premium. Authorities treated the transaction as “supply of services” under Section 7 read with Schedule II and classified it as taxable miscellaneous services. Court DecisionThe Court held that assignment of leasehold rights amounts to transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property and not a supply of services. It found that the transaction was neither lease nor sub-lease and the petitioner’s rights stood extinguished upon assignment. The activity lacked the essential element of being in the course or furtherance of business required under Section 7 of the CGST Act. Classification under “other miscellaneous services” was rejected as inapplicable. Accordingly, the show cause notice and adjudication order were quashed and set aside. Cases Referred• Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Union of India, (2025) 170
Court Decision:The writ petition challenged the recovery notice dated 25.11.2025 issued in Form GST DRC-13 by which the petitioner’s bank account was attached for the tax liability of M/s. Trans Car India Private Limited, where the petitioner was a Director.The company had earlier suffered an adverse Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2023. The writ petition filed against that order was dismissed with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Instead of filing the appeal, the company filed a writ appeal which was also dismissed. Since no relief was obtained against the Order-in-Original, the department proceeded to attach the petitioner’s bank account for recovery.The Court examined Section 89 of the CGST Act relating to liability of directors of a private company. The Court held that under Section 89(1), directors can be held jointly and severally liable for unpaid tax of the company if the tax cannot be recovered from the company, unless the director proves that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty on his part. The burden of proof lies on the director to establish this.The Court held that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to discharge this burden. Therefore, the impugned recovery notice attaching the petitioner’s bank account was quashed and the matter was remitted to the first respondent to pass a fresh order on merits after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner to file a proper reply explaining why recovery should not be made from him. The authority was directed to complete the process within two weeks from receipt of the order.
Khalid Buhari vs Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise & Another 13-02-2026
Court Decision:The writ petition challenged the recovery notice dated 25.11.2025 issued in Form GST DRC-13 by which the petitioner’s bank account was attached for the tax liability of M/s. Trans Car India Private Limited, where the petitioner was a Director.The company had earlier suffered an adverse Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2023. The writ petition filed against that order was dismissed with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Instead of filing the appeal, the company filed a writ appeal which was also dismissed. Since no relief was obtained against the Order-in-Original, the department proceeded to attach the petitioner’s bank account for recovery.The Court examined Section 89 of the CGST Act relating to liability of directors of a private company. The Court held that under Section 89(1), directors can be held jointly and severally liable for unpaid tax of the company if the tax cannot be recovered from the company, unless the director proves that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty on his part. The burden of proof lies on the director to establish this.The Court held that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to discharge this burden. Therefore, the impugned recovery notice attaching the petitioner’s bank account was quashed and the matter was remitted to the first respondent to pass a fresh order on merits after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner to file a proper reply explaining why recovery should not be made from him. The authority was directed to complete the process within two weeks from receipt of the order.
Case Facts:The petitioner challenged Order-in-Appeal dated 30.06.2025 confirming GST demand along with interest and penalty.Statutory remedy of appeal before GST Appellate Tribunal was available, but the Tribunal was not fully functional.Petitioner had already deposited ₹23.85 lakhs at the first appellate stage against an original demand of about ₹2.38 crores, later reduced to about ₹40 lakhs.The dispute centered on whether further pre-deposit was required for filing appeal before the Tribunal.Court Decision:Court held that no further pre-deposit is required for filing appeal before GSTAT considering earlier deposit of ₹23.85 lakhs.Petitioner permitted to file appeal within four weeks from the date of order.Tribunal directed to decide appeal on merits without considering limitation if filed within the stipulated time.If electronic filing is not possible, petitioner allowed to file appeal physically and same must be accepted without additional pre-deposit.All issues on merits left open for adjudication by the Tribunal.Writ petition disposed of without costs.
Ashirwad Food Industries vs Union of India & Ors. 09-02-2026
Case Facts:The petitioner challenged Order-in-Appeal dated 30.06.2025 confirming GST demand along with interest and penalty.Statutory remedy of appeal before GST Appellate Tribunal was available, but the Tribunal was not fully functional.Petitioner had already deposited ₹23.85 lakhs at the first appellate stage against an original demand of about ₹2.38 crores, later reduced to about ₹40 lakhs.The dispute centered on whether further pre-deposit was required for filing appeal before the Tribunal.Court Decision:Court held that no further pre-deposit is required for filing appeal before GSTAT considering earlier deposit of ₹23.85 lakhs.Petitioner permitted to file appeal within four weeks from the date of order.Tribunal directed to decide appeal on merits without considering limitation if filed within the stipulated time.If electronic filing is not possible, petitioner allowed to file appeal physically and same must be accepted without additional pre-deposit.All issues on merits left open for adjudication by the Tribunal.Writ petition disposed of without costs.
Facts The petitioner, a logistics service provider registered under GST, challenged Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4), contending that they impose an impossible burden on recipients to ensure tax payment by suppliers. It was argued that denial of ITC due to supplier default is arbitrary and beyond the control of the recipient. The petitioner sought declaration of the provisions as unconstitutional or alternatively sought reading down to protect bona fide recipients who complied with statutory requirements. Court Decision:The High Court declined to strike down Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4). The Court held that the provisions cannot be declared unconstitutional. However, relying on precedents, the Court held that bona fide purchasers cannot be denied ITC merely due to default of the selling dealer, unless there is fraud, collusion, or lack of genuineness in the transaction. The matter was considered in light of judicial precedents emphasizing protection of genuine transactions and limiting denial of ITC only in appropriate cases. Cases Referred by Court:• Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd. • On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India • Corporation Bank v. Saraswati Abharansala • Gheru Lal Bal Chand v. State of Haryana • State of Karnataka v. Rajesh Jain • Onyx Designs v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Instakart Services Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. 09-02-2026
Facts The petitioner, a logistics service provider registered under GST, challenged Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4), contending that they impose an impossible burden on recipients to ensure tax payment by suppliers. It was argued that denial of ITC due to supplier default is arbitrary and beyond the control of the recipient. The petitioner sought declaration of the provisions as unconstitutional or alternatively sought reading down to protect bona fide recipients who complied with statutory requirements. Court Decision:The High Court declined to strike down Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4). The Court held that the provisions cannot be declared unconstitutional. However, relying on precedents, the Court held that bona fide purchasers cannot be denied ITC merely due to default of the selling dealer, unless there is fraud, collusion, or lack of genuineness in the transaction. The matter was considered in light of judicial precedents emphasizing protection of genuine transactions and limiting denial of ITC only in appropriate cases. Cases Referred by Court:• Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd. • On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India • Corporation Bank v. Saraswati Abharansala • Gheru Lal Bal Chand v. State of Haryana • State of Karnataka v. Rajesh Jain • Onyx Designs v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Facts :The petitioner challenged the inability to file an appeal against assessment order dated 15.06.2023 due to delay. The order raised demand towards tax, interest and penalty for FY 2020–21. The petitioner contended that the order was only uploaded on the GST portal and not served physically, and due to closure of business, he did not access the portal. As a result, the petitioner remained unaware of the order and could not file appeal within limitation.Court Decision:The Court held that although the Appellate Authority is bound by limitation under Section 107, in the present case the delay occurred due to reasons beyond the petitioner’s control. It observed that non-consideration of appeal on merits would cause prejudice. Following earlier Division Bench decisions, the Court condoned the delay and directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits.Cases Referred:M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors.Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department & Ors.RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Vikas Chachan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 05-02-2026
Facts :The petitioner challenged the inability to file an appeal against assessment order dated 15.06.2023 due to delay. The order raised demand towards tax, interest and penalty for FY 2020–21. The petitioner contended that the order was only uploaded on the GST portal and not served physically, and due to closure of business, he did not access the portal. As a result, the petitioner remained unaware of the order and could not file appeal within limitation.Court Decision:The Court held that although the Appellate Authority is bound by limitation under Section 107, in the present case the delay occurred due to reasons beyond the petitioner’s control. It observed that non-consideration of appeal on merits would cause prejudice. Following earlier Division Bench decisions, the Court condoned the delay and directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits.Cases Referred:M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors.Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department & Ors.RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Facts :The petitioner alleged that GST officers illegally detained him from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 after calling him to the office of a Chartered Accountant in connection with investigation into fraudulent input tax credit by M/s Kabsan Services Pvt. Ltd. He contended that he was taken into custody without summons and that the formal arrest was shown only on 21.06.2025 under Section 69 of the CGST Act for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i). The petitioner sought compensation of ₹10,00,000 for alleged illegal detention. Court Decision:The Court held that the petitioner had been issued summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act for inquiry and recording of statement. The petitioner acknowledged the summons and appeared before the authorities from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 without raising any objection. The Court further held that Section 70 of the CGST Act does not require issuance of seven days’ prior notice before appearance for inquiry and that attendance pursuant to summons for investigation cannot be treated as detention.The Court observed that the petitioner was formally arrested on 21.06.2025 after ascertainment of his involvement and was produced before the Magistrate on the same day. Since the petitioner had voluntarily attended the inquiry and no illegal detention was established, the claim for compensation was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed. Cases Referred by Court:• Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P.• D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal• Dikshant vs. State of Maharashtra• FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India• Ram Kotumal Issrani vs. Directorate of Enforcement• Radhika Agarwal vs. Union of India
Kanhaiya Nilambar Jha vs. Union of India & Ors. 05-02-2026
Facts :The petitioner alleged that GST officers illegally detained him from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 after calling him to the office of a Chartered Accountant in connection with investigation into fraudulent input tax credit by M/s Kabsan Services Pvt. Ltd. He contended that he was taken into custody without summons and that the formal arrest was shown only on 21.06.2025 under Section 69 of the CGST Act for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i). The petitioner sought compensation of ₹10,00,000 for alleged illegal detention. Court Decision:The Court held that the petitioner had been issued summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act for inquiry and recording of statement. The petitioner acknowledged the summons and appeared before the authorities from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 without raising any objection. The Court further held that Section 70 of the CGST Act does not require issuance of seven days’ prior notice before appearance for inquiry and that attendance pursuant to summons for investigation cannot be treated as detention.The Court observed that the petitioner was formally arrested on 21.06.2025 after ascertainment of his involvement and was produced before the Magistrate on the same day. Since the petitioner had voluntarily attended the inquiry and no illegal detention was established, the claim for compensation was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed. Cases Referred by Court:• Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P.• D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal• Dikshant vs. State of Maharashtra• FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India• Ram Kotumal Issrani vs. Directorate of Enforcement• Radhika Agarwal vs. Union of India
Background & IssueThe petitioner, proprietor of M/s Shivani Overseas, challenged a summons dated 03.11.2025 issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 in connection with an inquiry relating to M/s Midas Marketing Inc. The summons directed the petitioner to appear and produce bank statements, sales invoices, and ledgers. The summons was issued by the Superintendent/Senior Intelligence Officer in reliance upon Circular No. 3/3/2017 dated 05.07.2017 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (now CBIC). The core legal issue before the Court was whether the said circular was validly issued — specifically, whether the Board (CBIC) had the authority to assign functions to "proper officers" under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, or whether such power vested exclusively in the "Commissioner in the Board" as defined under Section 2(25) read with Section 168(2) of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that only the "Commissioner in the Board" — being a Commissioner or Joint Secretary posted in the Board — could assign such functions, and that the circular issued in the name of the "Board" was therefore without legal authority, rendering the summons issued thereunder void.Court's DecisionThe Court, after examining the statutory framework, held that there was no ground to interfere with the validity of Circular No. 3/3/2017. It observed that since the Commissioner is admittedly a constituent part of the Board, the assignment of functions through the circular must be presumed to have been initiated at the level of the Commissioner in the Board and duly approved by the Board, as contemplated under Section 168(2) of the CGST Act. The Court further noted that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the circular was issued without authority — he merely relied upon the language of the preamble of the circular using the word "Board," without pleading or proving through documents that the required procedure under Section 168(2) was not followed. Applying the well-settled principle of presumption of validity of subordinate legislation — as reaffirmed in State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy (2006) 4 SCC 517, G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. & Anr. v. R. Periyasamy, Civil Appeal No. 10942/2014, and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6 — the Court held that the onus lay on the petitioner to prove invalidity, which he failed to discharge.Most Relevant Court Observation"In law, we have to presume that the circular is valid and the onus is on the petitioner to discharge the burden of establishing that the circular was issued without authority or legal approval." The Court further observed: "The fact remains that it is not in dispute that the Commissioner is also a part of the Board. Once it is not in dispute that the Commissioner is part of the Board, and sub-section (2) of Section 168 contemplates that the assignment of functions to the Central Tax Officers is upon a proposal of the Commissioner in the Board, we see no reason to disbelieve that the same was not under the authority of the Commissioner, which was approved by the Board as required under sub-section (2) of Section 168."Cases ReferredState of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517 | G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. & Anr. v. R. Periyasamy, Civil Appeal No. 10942/2014 | Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6
Lovelesh Singhal v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs & Ors. 02-02-2026
Background & IssueThe petitioner, proprietor of M/s Shivani Overseas, challenged a summons dated 03.11.2025 issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 in connection with an inquiry relating to M/s Midas Marketing Inc. The summons directed the petitioner to appear and produce bank statements, sales invoices, and ledgers. The summons was issued by the Superintendent/Senior Intelligence Officer in reliance upon Circular No. 3/3/2017 dated 05.07.2017 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (now CBIC). The core legal issue before the Court was whether the said circular was validly issued — specifically, whether the Board (CBIC) had the authority to assign functions to "proper officers" under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, or whether such power vested exclusively in the "Commissioner in the Board" as defined under Section 2(25) read with Section 168(2) of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that only the "Commissioner in the Board" — being a Commissioner or Joint Secretary posted in the Board — could assign such functions, and that the circular issued in the name of the "Board" was therefore without legal authority, rendering the summons issued thereunder void.Court's DecisionThe Court, after examining the statutory framework, held that there was no ground to interfere with the validity of Circular No. 3/3/2017. It observed that since the Commissioner is admittedly a constituent part of the Board, the assignment of functions through the circular must be presumed to have been initiated at the level of the Commissioner in the Board and duly approved by the Board, as contemplated under Section 168(2) of the CGST Act. The Court further noted that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the circular was issued without authority — he merely relied upon the language of the preamble of the circular using the word "Board," without pleading or proving through documents that the required procedure under Section 168(2) was not followed. Applying the well-settled principle of presumption of validity of subordinate legislation — as reaffirmed in State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy (2006) 4 SCC 517, G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. & Anr. v. R. Periyasamy, Civil Appeal No. 10942/2014, and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6 — the Court held that the onus lay on the petitioner to prove invalidity, which he failed to discharge.Most Relevant Court Observation"In law, we have to presume that the circular is valid and the onus is on the petitioner to discharge the burden of establishing that the circular was issued without authority or legal approval." The Court further observed: "The fact remains that it is not in dispute that the Commissioner is also a part of the Board. Once it is not in dispute that the Commissioner is part of the Board, and sub-section (2) of Section 168 contemplates that the assignment of functions to the Central Tax Officers is upon a proposal of the Commissioner in the Board, we see no reason to disbelieve that the same was not under the authority of the Commissioner, which was approved by the Board as required under sub-section (2) of Section 168."Cases ReferredState of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517 | G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. & Anr. v. R. Periyasamy, Civil Appeal No. 10942/2014 | Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6
Facts:Search and inspection proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 06.01.2021 under Section 67(2) of the RGST Act pursuant to authorization issued by the Additional Commissioner. Based on the search proceedings, a show cause notice dated 30.03.2023 was issued and an order dated 05.06.2023 was passed by the proper officer. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the RGST Act, which was dismissed on 11.12.2023 by the Appellate Authority.Court Decision:The High Court held that the authorization for inspection and search under Section 67 of the RGST Act was issued by the same officer who later acted as the Appellate Authority under Section 107 while deciding the appeal arising out of those proceedings. The Court observed that such dual exercise of power violates the principle of natural justice that no person should be a judge in his own cause.Accordingly, the appellate order dated 11.12.2023 passed under Section 107 of the RGST Act was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority with a direction that the appeal be decided afresh by a competent appellate authority other than the officer who authorized the search proceedings.
Ramjilal Mohanlal vs. Union of India & Ors. 29-01-2026
Facts:Search and inspection proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 06.01.2021 under Section 67(2) of the RGST Act pursuant to authorization issued by the Additional Commissioner. Based on the search proceedings, a show cause notice dated 30.03.2023 was issued and an order dated 05.06.2023 was passed by the proper officer. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the RGST Act, which was dismissed on 11.12.2023 by the Appellate Authority.Court Decision:The High Court held that the authorization for inspection and search under Section 67 of the RGST Act was issued by the same officer who later acted as the Appellate Authority under Section 107 while deciding the appeal arising out of those proceedings. The Court observed that such dual exercise of power violates the principle of natural justice that no person should be a judge in his own cause.Accordingly, the appellate order dated 11.12.2023 passed under Section 107 of the RGST Act was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority with a direction that the appeal be decided afresh by a competent appellate authority other than the officer who authorized the search proceedings.
Facts:The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 28.10.2022 after issuance of a show cause notice dated 12.10.2022 alleging that the registration had been obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice explaining the circumstances, including that the business had already been discontinued. Despite this, the authority cancelled the registration without addressing the reply or providing proper reasons.Court Decision:The High Court observed that the show cause notice was a cyclostyled notice without specific allegations and that there were serious discrepancies between the allegations in the show cause notice and the reasons recorded in the cancellation order. The authority had not considered the petitioner’s reply or provided any particulars of defects or objections.The Court held that the authority acted in a casual and mechanical manner without properly exercising jurisdiction under the CGST Act. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 cancelling the GST registration was quashed and set aside, and the petitioner’s GST registration was restored.
Om Enterprises vs. Union of India & Ors. 29-01-2026
Facts:The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 28.10.2022 after issuance of a show cause notice dated 12.10.2022 alleging that the registration had been obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice explaining the circumstances, including that the business had already been discontinued. Despite this, the authority cancelled the registration without addressing the reply or providing proper reasons.Court Decision:The High Court observed that the show cause notice was a cyclostyled notice without specific allegations and that there were serious discrepancies between the allegations in the show cause notice and the reasons recorded in the cancellation order. The authority had not considered the petitioner’s reply or provided any particulars of defects or objections.The Court held that the authority acted in a casual and mechanical manner without properly exercising jurisdiction under the CGST Act. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 cancelling the GST registration was quashed and set aside, and the petitioner’s GST registration was restored.
