Reberoshine International (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of State Tax and Ors. (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court considered a writ petition filed by Reberoshine International (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 10th June, 2026 issued by the State Tax Officer. The principal grievance of the petitioner was that its GST registration had been suspended with retrospective effect. The petitioner contended that although cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect may be permissible under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, suspension of registration with retrospective effect was not permissible in law. The petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 21(a) of the GST Rules.
The Court noted that the department had alleged fraud against the petitioner in the show cause notice, stating that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed its address and other particulars relating to its place of business to avoid CGST.
After considering the submissions and the material on record, the Court held that Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 expressly permits cancellation of GST registration from any date, including a retrospective date. Referring to the second proviso to Section 29(2), the Court observed that during the pendency of cancellation proceedings, the proper officer has the power to suspend registration for such period and in such manner as may be prescribed. According to the Court, the expression “as may be prescribed” refers to what is prescribed under Section 29 of the Act, which deals with both cancellation and suspension of registration.
The Court found no valid ground to entertain the petitioner’s challenge to Section 29(2) of the CGST Act or Rule 21(a) of the GST Rules.
The petitioner had also submitted that a similar writ petition challenging Section 29 of the Act was pending before the Court with interim protection. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader referred to an earlier order to contend that the petition had already been disposed of. The Court noted this submission.
The Court further observed that the impugned show cause notice afforded the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply and also provided an opportunity of personal hearing. However, the petitioner had not filed any reply to the show cause notice. The Court observed that the pleas raised in the writ petition could very well be raised in the reply to the show cause notice.
Holding that the writ petition was devoid of merit, the Court dismissed the petition while keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate proceeding.
Subsequently, on a praecipe seeking speaking to the minutes of the order dated 30th June, 2026, the Court considered the petitioner’s request to correct typographical errors in paragraph 9 of the order. The Court directed that the date “16th November, 2022” be replaced with “21st August, 2023” and the word “dismissed” be replaced with “disposed.” The Court directed that the corrected order be uploaded and clarified that the remainder of the order would remain unchanged. The praecipe was accordingly disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Heard Mr. Anjesh Pandit, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Also heard Ms. Jyoti Chavan, learned Addl. GP appearing for the State.
2. In this Writ Petition, the Show Cause Notice dated 10th June, 2026 issued by the State Tax Officer has been assailed, primarily on the ground that the GST registration of the Petitioner has been suspended with retrospective effect.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has advanced arguments in his attempt to convince this Court that even though cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect may be permissible under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 (Act of 2017), yet, suspending such cancellation with retrospective effect is impermissible in the eyes of law. As such, the Petitioner has assailed the show cause notice dated 10th June, 2026 as well as the provisions of Section 29(2) of CGST Act and Rule 21(a) of the GST Rules. We find from a perusal of the show cause notice that department has alleged fraud against the Petitioner. According to the Department, the Petitioner has deliberately suppressed his address and other particulars pertaining to place of business so as to avoid CGST.
4. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have also gone through the material available in the Writ Petition.
5. Coming to the first issue raised by the Petitioner that the suspension of GST registration with retrospective effect is impermissible under law, we find that Section 29(2) of the Act of 2017 categorically permits cancelling of GST registration from any date which may include a retrospective date. Therefore, it is apparent that the cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect is permissible under the law.
6. In so far as the second proviso to Section 29(2) of the Act of 2017 is concerned, here also, the law provides that during pendency of the proceedings relating to cancellation of registration, the Officer has the power to suspend the registration, for such period and in such manner, as may be prescribed. The meaning of the expression “as may be prescribed” in our considered opinion would mean as may be prescribed under Section 29 of the Act of 2017. This we say so because Section 29 of the Act of 2017 not only deals with cancellation of registration but also with suspension of the same.
7. In so far the challenge to section 29(2) of the Act of 2017, is concerned, we do not find any good ground for this Court to entertain the aforesaid challenge at the instance of the Petitioner. Likewise, we do not find any valid ground to entertain challenge to Rule 21(a) of the GST Rules.
8. Although the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that similar Writ Petition assailing Section 29 of the Act of 2017 is pending before this Court, wherein interim order of protection is operating, yet, our attention has been drawn by the learned AGP to the order of dismissal of that petition. She has relied upon the order dated 16th November, 2022 passed in Writ Petition No.3643 of 2022 by means of which the said Writ Petition was dismissed to submit that no such Writ Petition is pending before this Court.
9. Be that as it may, we find from the impugned show cause notice that besides granting scope to file reply, the Petitioner was afforded opportunity of personal hearing. However, Petitioner has failed to file any reply to the show cause notice. The plea raised in the Writ Petition can very well be taken in the show cause reply.
10. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is held to be devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. The questions of law are kept open to be decided in an appropriate proceeding.
1. Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board.
2. This praecipe is moved for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 30th June, 2026, passed by this Court. According to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, there are typographical error in paragraph No. 9 of the order dated 30th June, 2026. In paragraph-9 in 6th line, the date “16th November, 2022” requires to be replaced by date “21st August, 2023”. In 8th line, the word “dismissed” requires to be replaced by word “disposed”.
3. In view of the above, the original order dated 30th June, 2026 be corrected and corrected order be uploaded. Rest of the order remains as it is.
4. With the above observations, the praecipe stands disposed of.
