Shashi Kumar Choudhury Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court)
The writ petition challenged three interlinked actions: the show-cause notice dated 10.09.2025 proposing cancellation of GST registration; the order dated 25.08.2025 cancelling the registration; and the order dated 31.10.2025 rejecting the application for revocation.
The show-cause notice was issued under Rule 21(e) of the CGST Rules read with Section 16 of the CGST Act, alleging that the petitioner had availed input tax credit (ITC) in violation of statutory provisions. However, the notice did not mention the tax period, invoices, suppliers, or quantify the alleged irregular credit. The petitioner filed a reply objecting to the vagueness and non-disclosure of material particulars, asserting that an effective response was impossible without such details.
The record revealed that prior to issuance of the cancellation order, a communication dated 08.08.2025 from the Joint Director requested cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration during an ongoing investigation. The Court found that the subsequent cancellation order dated 25.08.2025 appeared to be issued in response to this request. There was no indication of independent evaluation or objective satisfaction by the proper officer as required under Section 29 of the CGST Act read with Rule 21(e).
Relying on the principle laid down in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, the Court held that when quasi-judicial power is vested in an authority, it must be exercised independently and not under dictation of a superior administrative authority. Such independence is integral to the rule of law.
