SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 651

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Nijumoni Gogoi, D/o - Lakhi Gogoi - Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue And Ors. - Respondents
WP(C)/2383 of 2026
Decided On : 11-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S R A Naser, S K Sarfraj Karim
For the Respondent: Dy.S.G.I., Sc, Cgst

An order cancelling a registration under statutory provisions must be a speaking order, assigning specific reasons for the decision. The failure of an assessee to respond to a show cause notice does not exempt the adjudicating authority from the mandatory obligation to record reasons for its action.

Headnote:(A) Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 29(2)(c) and 39(1) - Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Rules 21, 21A and 22 - Cancellation of registration - Requirement of speaking order - Adjudicating authority must record reasons for decision - Failure to assign reasons renders order arbitrary and illegal - Non-submission of reply to show cause notice does not absolve authority from obligation to pass speaking order. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 18, 22, 23)

(B) Natural Justice - Principles of - Adjudicating authority exercising statutory power must record reasons - Recording of reasons is a check against arbitrary action - Absence of reasons violates statutory prescription and principles of fair play. (Paras 22, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner's registration was cancelled by the authorities for failure to furnish returns for a continuous period. The petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice within the stipulated time. The final order of cancellation was passed without assigning any specific reasons, merely citing the relevant rules.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned order was non-speaking and cryptic. The authority failed to comply with the statutory requirement of assigning reasons for the cancellation of registration, which is a mandatory procedural safeguard.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of registration without a speaking order is sustainable in law, even when the noticee fails to respond to the show cause notice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an order having adverse civil consequences must be a speaking order. The obligation to record reasons is mandatory to ensure transparency and prevent arbitrary exercise of power, regardless of the noticee's failure to participate in the proceedings. The absence of reasons in the decision falls short of statutory prescription and violates the principles of natural justice.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside and quashed; matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Table of Content
1. summary of procedural background and the challenge to the cancellation of gst registration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. parties' contentions regarding procedural defaults and valid exercise of cancellation powers. (Para 6 , 7)
3. statutory requirements for cancelling gst registration under section 29 of the cgst act and rule 22 of the cgst rules. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. requirement of a 'speaking order' and providing reasons in administrative adjudications affecting civil rights. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. resolution of delay arguments and procedural directions for remand and compliance. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

ORDER :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the premise that his GST Registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax [CGST] Act, 2017 has been cancelled by an Order dated 17.04.2025 pursuant to issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated 12.02.2025. The assail is made inter-alia on the grounds that the manner in which the GST Registration has been cancelled is arbitrary and the impugned Order of cancellation has been passed without due application of mind.

2. It is the case of the petitioner is that he is engaged in business of transport service and his principal place of business is at Tengakhat Girls School, Tengakhat, Niz Tengakhat, Dibrugarh, Assam. The petitioner got himself registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax [CGST] Act, 2017 [‘the CGST Act’, for short]/State Goods and Services Tax [SGST] Act, 2017 [‘the SGST Act’, for short]. It is stated that when the petitioner applied for registration, the petitioner was issued a Registration Certificate in Form GST REG-06 with Registration no. 18CPYPG5749B1ZF w.e.f. 07.03.2022.

3. The petitioner was issued the Show Cause Notice on 12.02.2025 by the Proper Officer asking him to show cause as to why the Registration issued to him under the CGST Act should not be cancelled. The petitioner was thereby, asked to furnish a Reply within thirty days from the date of service of the Show Cause Notice. The petitioner was also directed to appear before the Proper Officer at 11-00 on 12.03.2025. It was further mentioned that if the petitioner would fail to furnish a Reply within the stipulated date or would fail to appear for personal hearing on the appointed date and time, the case would be decided ex-parte on the basis of the available records and on merits. By the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner’s Registration under the CGST Act had also been suspended w.e.f. 12.02.2025.

4. Thereafter on 17.04.2025, the impugned Order came to be passed whereby the petitioner’s GST Registration has been cancelled w.e.f. 17.04.2025.

5. I have heard Mr. S.R.A. Naser, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Senior Counsel & Standing Counsel, CGST for all the respondents.

6. Mr. Naser, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in response to the Show Cause Notice, which was uploaded in the common portal, the petitioner could not submit its reply due to reasons beyond his control as it escaped its notice. It is submitted that the petitioner came to learn about the Show Cause Notice when the time for filing the Reply was already over and the impugned Order dated 17.04.2025 had already been uploaded in the common portal. The petitioner submitted returns upto January-March, 2025, as allowed by the GST Portal. Though the petitioner tried to submit an application for revocation, the GST portal did not allow submission of such application as the time-limit prescribed for filing of revocation of application was already over by then. Similarly, the petitioner could not prefer an appeal due to expiry of the statutory period of limitation. Mr. Naser has submitted that the impugned Order of cancellation of GST Registration is to be passed in Form

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top