Saurabh Sahu Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Bombay High Court)
In a ruling that underscores the importance of specificity in legal proceedings, the Bombay High Court has set aside an order canceling the Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration of Saurabh Sahu. The court held that merely quoting a statutory section and making broad allegations of “fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts” in a show cause notice (SCN) is insufficient and constitutes a violation of natural justice, rendering any subsequent action invalid. The decision reiterates that a vague notice deprives the recipient of a fair opportunity to respond.
The petitioner, Saurabh Sahu, challenged an order dated July 7, 2023, which had canceled his GST registration under the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This cancellation order was a direct outcome of an SCN issued on June 12, 2023.
Vague Show Cause Notice at the Heart of the Dispute
The crux of the High Court’s examination was the content and delivery of the SCN. The notice, issued in Form GST REG-17, merely stated: “Whereas on the basis of information which has come to my notice, it appears that your registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reasons. 1. Section 29(2)(e)-registration obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.” Beyond this generic statement, the SCN offered no specific details of the alleged fraud, misstatement, or suppression. Furthermore, while it warned of an ex parte decision if a reply wasn’t furnished or a personal hearing wasn’t attended, it conspicuously omitted any specific date or time for such a hearing.
