Shubham Singh Vs State of U.P (Allahabad High Court)
This case summary outlines the proceedings in the Allahabad High Court concerning the petition filed by Shubham Singh against the State of U.P., challenging a persistent cycle of GST registration suspension and cancellation by the State Tax authorities. The firm, R.H. Enterprises, faced repeated actions based on allegations of being non-existent and engaging in fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) activities.
Background and Petitioner’s Grievances
The petitioner, Shubham Singh, is the proprietor of R.H. Enterprises, a firm registered with the GST Department since July 13, 2021, dealing in goods like old iron scrap, TMT bars, and food grains. The firm operates from its main place of business in Gonda and an additional location in Barabanki.
The core of the petitioner’s grievance was the authorities’ repeated attempts to cancel his Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration. This pattern included:
1. First Cancellation: A show cause notice (SCN) was issued on February 9, 2024. Although the petitioner replied, the registration was cancelled on April 4, 2024, following a subsequent SCN on March 18, 2024, despite an appeal being rejected. The petitioner challenged this in Writ Tax No. 141 of 2024, which the High Court allowed on May 30, 2024, leading to the revocation of the cancellation on June 6, 2024.
2. Second Cancellation: A subsequent SCN was issued on November 12, 2024, followed by a cancellation order on April 21, 2025. The petitioner successfully challenged this in a statutory appeal, and the Appellate Authority set aside the cancellation on May 28, 2025.
3. Third Suspension: Despite the appellate order setting aside the second cancellation, the GST registration was not effectively restored on the common portal. The petitioner filed Writ Tax No. 588 of 2025, which was disposed of on July 11, 2025, upon the Standing Counsel’s assurance that the registration had been restored. However, soon after, the impugned show cause notice cum suspension order dated August 12, 2025, was issued, citing the same reasons under Rules 21(a), 21(b), and 21(e) of the U.P. GST Rules.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the repeated, virtually identical, actions constituted a clear abuse of power, indicating the authorities were “adamant” not to allow the business to run. Furthermore, the counsel asserted that no formal adjudication proceedings under Section 73 or 74 of the U.P. GST Act had been undertaken to substantiate the alleged violations, which is typically a prerequisite for sustained cancellation proceedings under Section 29(2) of the Act.
