Case Law Details
Pritam Sovasaria Vs Union of India And Ors. (Gauhati High Court)
The writ petition before the Gauhati High Court challenged a Show Cause Notice dated 10.07.2025 issued for cancellation of GST registration and the subsequent cancellation order dated 30.07.2025 passed during the pendency of the writ proceedings. The petitioner contended that the Show Cause Notice was cryptic, as it merely cited Section 29(2)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without disclosing any factual basis or particulars. It was further argued that the notice did not indicate that cancellation would be effected retrospectively, thereby depriving the petitioner of a reasonable opportunity to submit an effective reply. The petitioner alleged that such action was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and relied on a Telangana High Court decision where cryptic notices were held to violate taxpayer rights.
The petitioner clarified that the challenge in the present writ was confined only to the cancellation of GST registration, and not to the seizure of goods, which would be pursued before the appropriate authority in West Bengal.
The respondents opposed the writ petition, contending that the Show Cause Notice was not cryptic. It was submitted that although the email communication contained only the legal provisions, attachments with factual details could not be delivered electronically. The hard copies of the notice along with enclosures were stated to have been returned unserved. According to the respondents, the petitioner had evaded receipt of the enclosures and could not take advantage of his own conduct. It was also contended that retrospective cancellation of registration is permissible under law. The State of West Bengal supported the submissions of the CGST authorities and stated that the issue of seizure could be addressed at the appropriate stage.
After considering the rival submissions and examining the materials on record, the Court noted that the Show Cause Notice dated 10.07.2025, on its face, only referred to Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act and did not contain any factual details. Though the notice indicated that supporting documents were attached, the petitioner’s case was that such documents had not been furnished to him. The Court also took note of the submission of the CGST authorities that the attachments could not be served through email and that hard copies had been returned unserved. The respondents, during the hearing, placed before the Court the attachments forming the basis of the Show Cause Notice.
Without entering into the disputed question of whether the petitioner had deliberately avoided service of the enclosures, the Court held that, in order to shorten litigation and ensure fairness, the cancellation order dated 30.07.2025 deserved to be set aside. The Court observed that the cancellation order was founded on the impugned Show Cause Notice, which lacked factual particulars in its body and whose enclosures were allegedly not received by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the cancellation of GST registration and directed that the petitioner be given a fresh opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice on the basis of the enclosures. The Court recorded that copies of the relevant enclosures had been supplied to the petitioner’s counsel in Court itself. The petitioner was granted three weeks’ time to submit a reply along with a copy of the Court’s order. The respondents were directed to consider the reply in accordance with law, grant a personal hearing, and communicate the outcome to the petitioner in writing.
With respect to the issue of seizure of goods, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise the same before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Heard Shri A. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri S. K. Medhi, learned CGC appearing for the respondent no. 1; Shri S. Chetia, learned Senior Standing Counsel, CGST appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 3; Ms. S. P. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri S. C. Keyal, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Shri B. Gogoi, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7.
2. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
3. The petitioner has put to challenge a Show-Cause Notice dated 10.07.2025 issued by the Superintendent, I-B Range Guwahati Zonal Unit as to why his GST Registration should not be cancelled. The challenge is also against an order dated 30.07.2025 which was passed during the pendency of the first writ petition whereby the GST registration was cancelled.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily contended that such cancellation has been done with retrospective effect and the same was not indicated in the Show Cause Notice. He has also contended that the notice was cryptic in nature as apart from quoting the relevant provisions of law, there was no factual aspect on which the show cause notice was issue, as a result of which, the petitioner was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to submit an effective reply. He has also submitted that the action is high handed and unreasonable violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision dated 08.07.2024 by the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of the Telengana in the case of Rayees Metals Vs Deputy State Tax Officer. In the said case, interference was made by the Hon’ble Court on the ground that the notice was cryptic and the rights of the taxpayer under Article 21 was violated.
6. Shri Goyal, the learned counsel has however clarified that presently he is confining his argument on the aspect of cancellation of the registration and so far as the seizure of the goods is concerned, he would take up the matter with the appropriate authority of the State of West Bengal.
7. Countering the submissions of the petitioner, Shri Chetia, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that it is wholly in correct on the part of the petitioner to state that the impugned show cause notice was cryptic in nature. He has submitted that the opportunity was granted to the petitioner and though the notice by the e-mail had contained the provisions of law, there was an attachment which however could not be sent on the e-mail address. So far as the hard copy of the show cause notice along with enclosures is concerned, the same had returned back un-served. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has evaded receipt of the enclosures to the show cause notice being served upon him and is trying to take advantage of his own wrong. He has also submitted that cancellation of the registration by giving a retrospective effect is permissible in law.
8. Shri Gogoi, the learned counsel for the State of West Bengal has endorsed the submission advanced on behalf of the CGST and has also justified the aspect of seizure. He has also added that since the aspect of seizure is not presently pressed, the same would be defended at an appropriate stage. The learned counsel for the rest of the respondents have endorsed the submissions advanced on behalf of the CGST.
9. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been duly examined.
10. A perusal of the Show-Cause Notice dated 10.07.2025 would reveal that apart from stating the provisions of Section 29(2)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, there are no facts or any details stated. There is however an indication in the notice that supportive documents are attached for specific details. It is the specific case of the petitioner that such details were not furnished to him.
11. This Court has however taken consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the CGST that the attachment in the e-mail would not be served in the e-mail ID of the petitioner and also the hard copies had bounced back. Be that as it may, Shri Chetia, the learned Standing Counsel has placed before this Court the attachment to the show cause notice containing the materials on which the same has been issued.
12. Without going into the contentious issue as to whether the petitioner had evaded receipt of the enclosures to the show cause notice, this Court is of the view that to shorten the litigation, the impugned order of cancellation dated 30.07.2025 based on the impugned show cause notice is set aside and the petitioner be given a fresh opportunity to file his show cause in terms of the enclosures, copy of which have been supplied to Shri Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner by Shri Chetia, learned Senior Standing Counsel in the Court by itself.
13. Let such reply be filed within a period of 3 (three) weeks from today along with a copy of the present order and upon such submission, the reply is to be considered in accordance with law and by giving the petitioner a personal hearing. The outcome of such consideration is required to be communicated to the petitioner in writing.
14. As regards the aspect of the seizure, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise the same before the appropriate authority in accordance with law.
15. The writ petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.
Author Bio
