RTI, NGTP Tagging, and Retrospective Supplier Cancellation: Protecting Bona Fide Buyers Facing ITC Demands Under GST
Introduction
A recurring grievance in GST enforcement today is that genuine purchasers are being called upon to reverse input tax credit merely because one or more suppliers have later been tagged as non-genuine taxpayers or have had their registrations cancelled with retrospective effect. In many cases, the buying dealer receives a DRC-01A or show cause notice alleging that the supplier was “non-existent,” “bogus,” or part of an NGTP list, yet the notice does not disclose the actual cancellation order, the date of cancellation, the reasons recorded by the proper officer, or the underlying material said to justify the allegation.
This creates a serious practical problem. A taxpayer who has purchased goods under tax invoices, obtained e-way bills, received goods at the business premises, recorded the purchases in books, and paid the supplier through banking channels is then asked, within a very short period, to reverse the credit with interest and penalty. When relied-upon documents are withheld and only a short compliance window is granted, the proceeding begins to look less like adjudication and more like a presumption of guilt.
The legal and procedural question that arises is important for trade and industry: can the taxpayer seek the supplier’s cancellation order and related records through the Right to Information Act, 2005? The answer, in principle, is yes. Any citizen may seek information held by a public authority, subject only to the exemptions contained in the Act. GST authorities, whether under the Central or State administration, are public authorities for this purpose, and the registration cancellation orders passed in REG-19 are official records held by them.
This article examines the statutory basis, the practical use of RTI in NGTP-based ITC disputes, the limits and likely objections, the drafting approach for an effective RTI application, and the larger issue of fairness to bona fide buyers who are struggling under severe demand notices without adequate disclosure or sufficient time.
The statutory framework of cancellation under GST
Section 29 of the CGST/KGST regime authorises cancellation of registration in the situations specified by law, including cases where the proper officer forms the view that registration has become liable to cancellation on the grounds provided in the statute. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules lays down the procedure for cancellation. Where the proper officer believes that registration is liable to be cancelled under section 29, a notice in FORM GST REG-17 is to be issued, calling upon the registered person to show cause why the registration should not be cancelled.
The reply is to be furnished in FORM GST REG-18 within the prescribed period. Thereafter, where the officer decides to cancel the registration, an order is passed in FORM GST REG-19, and the rule expressly states that the officer shall determine the effective date of cancellation and notify the taxable person accordingly. This feature is important. The order is not an invisible backend event; it is a formal statutory order, passed in a prescribed form, with an effective date chosen by the proper officer.
In actual disputes involving buyers, however, the purchasing dealer often does not receive a copy of that REG-19 order. The buyer is instead shown only the end result in the form of a portal status, a general allegation in DRC-01A, or a statement that the supplier fell into the NGTP category. This difference between the legal order and the limited information shared with the buyer is at the heart of many present controversies.
Why the cancellation order matters to the buyer
For a bona fide buyer, the date and contents of the supplier’s cancellation order can be highly relevant. First, the order reveals whether the cancellation was prospective or retrospective. If the purchases were made during a period when the supplier was apparently active and tax invoices were issued in the ordinary course, the buyer may argue that later retrospective cancellation cannot automatically nullify completed transactions that were genuine at the time they were entered into.
Secondly, the cancellation order may show the actual grounds recorded by the proper officer. There is a substantial difference between a case where registration was cancelled because returns were not filed and a case where the department has specific evidence that the business was fictitious, non-existent, or issuing invoices without supply. A bare assertion in a later demand notice that the supplier was “bogus” cannot substitute for disclosure of the actual order and reasons.
Thirdly, the cancellation order may expose weakness in the department’s later case against the buyer. If the REG-19 order is vague, mechanical, or silent on movement of goods, yet the department seeks to brand every purchase from that supplier as sham, the buyer is entitled to point out that the demand proceeds on suspicion rather than proof. In many cases, the true controversy is not simply supplier cancellation but whether the purchasing dealer was complicit in fraud. That question cannot be answered without examining the buyer’s own documents and the department’s actual material.
Whether RTI can be used to seek supplier cancellation records
Under Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, all citizens have the right to information, subject to the provisions of the Act. The official guides under the RTI framework also confirm that information held by or under the control of a public authority can be sought, and refusal must be justified only under the exemptions expressly contained in the Act.
This means that a taxpayer facing a GST demand can apply under RTI to the concerned Public Information Officer of the State GST office or CGST Commissionerate that passed the cancellation order, seeking copies of the REG-17 notice, REG-19 cancellation order, the effective date of cancellation, and the grounds recorded in the order. The request is especially legitimate where the applicant explains that the information is required for effective compliance with a DRC-01A or show cause notice that relies on the supplier’s non-existence, bogus status, or retrospective cancellation.
The strength of such an RTI request lies in its narrowness. The applicant is not necessarily asking for the entire intelligence file, confidential statements, or every internal note in the investigation. The immediate request can be confined to the statutory cancellation order and the dates connected with it. Those are concrete records, not speculative queries or interrogatories.
What information may be sought under RTI
A well-drafted RTI in this context should ask for precise, existing records. The application may seek the following:
- Certified copy of the REG-19 cancellation order passed against the named supplier GSTIN.
- Copy of the REG-17 show cause notice issued before cancellation, if available for disclosure.
- The effective date of cancellation as recorded in the order and on the portal.
- The date on which the cancellation order was passed.
- The ground recorded under section 29(2) for cancellation.
- Whether the cancellation was prospective or retrospective.
- If available as a record, the communication or noting by which the supplier was tagged under NGTP or non-existent category, subject to lawful exemptions.
- The name and designation of the authority that passed the cancellation order.
The request should be linked to the applicant’s own proceedings. That linkage is not legally mandatory for an RTI application, but it adds persuasive force. When the applicant states that disclosure is needed for compliance with an ITC denial proceeding, the demand for information appears both reasonable and necessary to protect natural justice.
Likely departmental objections and how to understand them
When such an RTI is filed, the public authority may not always give full disclosure. The first likely response is that the information concerns a third party. That objection may arise because the cancellation order pertains to another registered person, namely the supplier. However, a statutory cancellation order passed by a public authority is not on the same footing as private commercial information. At the very least, the authority should examine whether disclosure of the order, effective date, and recorded grounds can be made, possibly after following the applicable RTI procedure if third-party consultation is thought necessary.
The second possible objection is that the matter relates to investigation. Where the department claims that inquiry, verification, or enforcement proceedings are still in progress, it may invoke investigation-related exemptions under the RTI Act. Even then, the public authority cannot reject the request mechanically. The exemption must be linked to a real likelihood of impeding the process of investigation or prosecution. A blanket refusal, without showing how disclosure of the REG-19 order itself would impede anything, may not stand on sound footing.
The third possible response is partial disclosure. The authority may provide the cancellation order but withhold file notings, intelligence inputs, or backend communications. Such a result may still be useful in practice. For the buyer’s defence, the most immediate need is often the order date, the effective date, and the recorded ground.
Why RTI is strategically useful in DRC-01A and SCN compliance
From a litigation perspective, RTI serves three practical functions. First, it forces the department to identify the exact order and date on which it relies. This is valuable because many notices casually refer to NGTP tagging without disclosing whether the supplier was cancelled before the buyer’s transaction, after the transaction, or with retrospective effect long after the event.
Secondly, RTI can reveal whether the later allegation in the buyer’s notice matches the supplier’s actual cancellation record. A notice may label the supplier as bogus, but the cancellation order may have been based on different grounds or may contain little reasoning. Such inconsistency can be highlighted in reply and personal hearing.
Thirdly, RTI builds a record of procedural fairness. If the taxpayer asks both in the GST proceedings and through RTI for the relied-upon cancellation order, and the authority still refuses or remains silent, the taxpayer gains a stronger ground to argue violation of natural justice, absence of disclosure, and denial of fair opportunity.
The deeper problem: genuine buyers and short-notice compliance
The NGTP problem is not merely a technical issue about portal status. It has become a serious commercial and legal burden on ordinary traders. A buying dealer may have done all that is commercially expected: checked the supplier’s GSTIN, obtained invoice and e-way bill, received goods, entered them in stock, paid through bank, and reported the credit in returns. Yet the dealer may later face a sudden DRC-01A demanding reversal of ITC with interest and penalty only because the supplier is now classified as non-genuine or because registration has been cancelled retrospectively.
The hardship is aggravated where the department grants only a few days to comply. Gathering supplier-wise invoices, transport records, weighment slips, bank statements, ledgers, and reconciliations across several months is not a small exercise. Genuine taxpayers are placed under pressure to either pay under protest or risk a formal show cause notice carrying serious allegations. Such compressed timelines do not sit well with the idea of meaningful opportunity.
Trade also suffers because business decisions are made in real time, not with hindsight. A purchaser can inspect documents and verify portal status on the date of transaction, but cannot predict a future retrospective cancellation order passed months later. If every later supplier default is automatically loaded onto the buyer, commercial certainty is undermined. The law must distinguish between a complicit participant in fraud and an ordinary purchaser who acted bona fide on the materials then available.
Example situations illustrating the issue
Consider a wholesaler who purchased steel scrap in May 2025 from a registered supplier. The invoice carried GST, the e-way bill was generated, the lorry reached the godown, inward entry was made, and payment was released through RTGS. In September 2026, the purchasing dealer receives a DRC-01A alleging that the supplier was non-existent and the registration was cancelled retrospectively from April 2025. If the buyer is not given a copy of the supplier’s cancellation order, it becomes impossible to test the legality, timing, and basis of that allegation.
Take another case: a trader purchases electrical goods from three suppliers over four months. Later, the department alleges that all three were in the NGTP list. Yet the notice encloses no cancellation orders, no transport contradiction report, no stock discrepancy note, and no statement from any transporter. The buyer’s defence in such a case must begin by demanding document disclosure and, in parallel, applying under RTI for the cancellation orders and dates. This dual approach strengthens both the factual and procedural defence.
Practical drafting guidance for an RTI application
The RTI application should be addressed to the Public Information Officer of the office that actually cancelled the supplier’s registration. If the proper office is uncertain, the application may still be filed with the apparent jurisdictional authority, requesting transfer to the correct authority if required under the Act.
The language should remain precise and restrained. The applicant should not ask argumentative questions such as why the officer treated the supplier as bogus. Instead, the request should seek existing records: copies of orders, notices, dates, grounds, and communications available on file. It is also advisable to mention the taxpayer’s own GST proceedings and state that the information is sought for compliance and defence in pending GST demand proceedings arising from allegations against named suppliers.
The application fee and mode of filing will depend upon whether the request is made before a Central or State authority. The official RTI guides recognise the citizen’s right to seek information from the public authority, and if the information is refused or not supplied in time, a first appeal may be filed under Section 19 before the designated appellate authority.
Model RTI application format
To
The Public Information Officer
Office of the Jurisdictional State Tax / Central Tax Authority
[Full office address]
Subject: Application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking supplier-wise GST registration cancellation orders and related particulars for compliance with pending GST proceedings.
Applicant:
Name: [Applicant Name]
Address: [Full Address]
Mobile / Email: [Details]
Details of information sought:
The applicant is a bona fide purchasing dealer and is presently facing GST proceedings in which input tax credit is proposed to be denied on the ground that certain suppliers were non-existent / non-genuine taxpayers and their registrations were cancelled. The information sought is required for effective compliance, defence, and to meet the allegations raised in the pending DRC-01A / show cause proceedings.
Accordingly, the following information is requested in respect of the supplier GSTIN(s) mentioned below:
1. Certified copy of FORM GST REG-19 cancellation order passed against each of the below GSTIN(s).
2. Date on which the REG-19 order was passed in each case.
3. Effective date of cancellation mentioned in each order.
4. Certified copy of the preceding show cause notice in FORM GST REG-17, if available for disclosure.
5. Ground(s) recorded under section 29(2) for cancellation in each case.
6. Whether the cancellation was ordered prospectively or retrospectively.
7. Name and designation of the proper officer who passed the cancellation order.
8. Copy of any communication / record available on file showing classification of the said GSTIN as non-genuine taxpayer / non-existent dealer / NGTP, to the extent disclosure is permissible under the RTI Act.
9. If any of the above information is denied, kindly specify the exact provision of the RTI Act relied upon for refusal.
Supplier GSTIN(s):
1. [GSTIN 1]
2. [GSTIN 2]
3. [GSTIN 3]
The applicant requests certified copies wherever the records exist in documentary form. If the information is held by another public authority or another office within the department, the application may kindly be transferred to the concerned authority in accordance with law.cic.gov+1
Date: []
Place: []
Signature of Applicant
Model paragraph for reply to DRC-01A or show cause notice
A useful paragraph for GST reply may be framed as follows:
“The impugned intimation proceeds on the allegation that certain suppliers were non-existent / non-genuine taxpayers and that their registrations stood cancelled. However, no supplier-wise cancellation order in FORM GST REG-19, no date of such order, no effective date of cancellation, and no recorded ground under section 29(2) read with Rule 22 has been furnished to the noticee. In the absence of these relied-upon documents, the noticee is deprived of a meaningful opportunity to verify whether the alleged cancellation was prospective or retrospective, whether it preceded or followed the transactions in question, and whether the statutory grounds now alleged against the suppliers are borne out by the actual record. The proceedings, insofar as they rely on undisclosed cancellation material, are therefore contrary to natural justice and liable to be kept in abeyance until the relevant documents are furnished.
Model paragraph for personal hearing
A concise oral submission may be made in the following manner:
“The department cannot ask the noticee to accept a serious allegation merely on the basis of a label such as NGTP or non-existent dealer. If the supplier’s cancellation order is the foundation of the proposed ITC denial, then the noticee is entitled to know when that order was passed, from which date it was made effective, and on what ground under section 29(2) read with Rule 22 it was issued. Without those basic documents, and without examining the noticee’s own invoices, e-way bills, stock records, transport evidence, and bank payments, the proposed demand remains incomplete and procedurally unfair.
Section 29 and Rule 22 point for legal argument
A focused legal submission may be framed as follows:
“Section 29 authorises cancellation of registration only in accordance with the statutory grounds, and Rule 22 prescribes the procedure through issuance of notice in FORM GST REG-17, consideration of reply in FORM GST REG-18, and passing of an order in FORM GST REG-19 specifying the effective date of cancellation. Therefore, where the department seeks to rely on supplier cancellation as a circumstance against a purchasing dealer, the minimum requirement of fair procedure is disclosure of the supplier-wise REG-19 order and its effective date. Reliance on a mere portal tag, backend classification, or general allegation, without furnishing the statutory cancellation order itself, denies the noticee an effective opportunity to respond.
First appeal under RTI if information is denied
If the Public Information Officer refuses disclosure or does not respond within the statutory period, a first appeal may be filed under Section 19 of the RTI Act before the First Appellate Authority senior in rank to the PIO. Official RTI guidance notes that refusal must be traceable to the Act itself and cannot rest on invented grounds outside the statutory exemptions.
A simple appellate plea may state that the applicant sought certified copies of statutory cancellation orders and effective dates directly relied upon in pending GST proceedings, that the refusal is unsupported by a proper exemption analysis, and that disclosure is necessary for compliance, defence, and observance of natural justice. Section 19 is a meaningful remedy because the burden of justifying denial falls on the public authority in appeal proceedings.
Broader implications for the business community
The present issue deserves wider attention because it affects the integrity of commercial transactions. Buyers and sellers operate in a tax system that assumes self-assessment but also depends upon verifiable documentation. If a buyer who has acted with ordinary commercial prudence can still be exposed to tax, interest, and penalty merely because a supplier is later placed in an adverse category, confidence in lawful trade is weakened.
At a minimum, enforcement must distinguish between suspicious paper transactions and genuine commercial movement of goods. The department is fully entitled to investigate sham entities, fake invoice rackets, and circular trading. But that objective is not advanced by denying fair opportunity to genuine taxpayers or by withholding the statutory orders that are being used as the basis for downstream action. Sound administration requires document disclosure, reasonable time, supplier-wise analysis, and independent verification of the buyer’s own records.
Conclusion
A taxpayer can, in appropriate cases, apply under the Right to Information Act to seek the supplier’s GST cancellation order, the date of the order, the effective date of cancellation, and related particulars when such material is necessary to defend against ITC denial based on NGTP or non-existence allegations. This is not merely a procedural tactic; it is an assertion of the larger principle that tax liability cannot be fastened on a bona fide buyer through undisclosed material and mechanical assumptions.
The recurring pattern of short-notice DRC-01A communications, non-disclosure of supplier cancellation orders, and automatic pressure to reverse ITC with interest and penalty is causing real hardship to honest trade. The lawful response is twofold: insist within the GST proceedings on disclosure of relied-upon documents and fair opportunity, and simultaneously use RTI to obtain the statutory cancellation records from the concerned public authority. Such an approach does not obstruct enforcement; it strengthens legality, accountability, and confidence in the GST system itself.
Author Bio
