Delhi HC Relegates GST Registration Cancellation Challenge to Section 107 Appeal

Adhvik Polychem Vs Assistant Commissioner (Delhi High Court)

Summary: The Delhi High Court declined to entertain the writ petition filed by Adhvik Polychem challenging the order dated 09.06.2026 by which its application for cancellation of GST registration had been rejected. The Court noted at the outset that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Although the petitioner did not dispute the availability of the alternative remedy, it requested the Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in view of the circumstances pleaded before the Court and the petitioner’s contention that it was being unnecessarily harassed. The petitioner submitted that three earlier Show Cause Notices issued for cancellation of its GST registration had subsequently been dropped. It further submitted that another Show Cause Notice dated 09.06.2026 had proposed cancellation of the registration and that a reply had already been submitted on 16.06.2026. The impugned proceedings also recorded that the petitioner had been granted an opportunity of personal hearing on 08.06.2026, but no authorised representative had appeared.

The Show Cause Notice set out several allegations concerning the petitioner’s GST registration and subsequent conduct. These included alleged authenticity issues concerning registration documents, an allegedly invalid mobile number and incomplete CA number on the BSES electricity bill, an alleged discrepancy between the address in the registration/rent agreement and the address stated on the Aadhaar Card of the proprietor, doubts regarding the identity of witnesses to the rent agreement, non-attendance in proceedings, alleged availment of excess ITC, alleged availment or passing of ITC from non-existent firms, non-discharge of tax liability, reporting of the firm as non-existing at its stated communication address, reporting of the firm as a fake firm, failure to respond to SCNs and DRC-01 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, and failure to respond to the DRC-07/demand order. The Respondent’s order similarly relied upon the material available on record and referred to two further opportunities for personal hearing through SCNs dated 13.03.2026 and 27.03.2026, which were stated to have been returned with remarks that no such person resided at the address.