Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 9502
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J
Pritam Sovasaria – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WP(C)/4700/2025
Important Points
Subject
Taxation - GST
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Natural Justice - Right to be heard - Mere citation of statutory provisions in a notice without accompanying factual details or supportive documents does not constitute a valid notice, necessitating a fresh opportunity for the assessee to respond to the actual grounds of the case. (Para 10, 13)
Issues: Whether the cancellation of GST registration based on a cryptic show cause notice without providing factual enclosures violates the principles of natural justice.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri A. Goyal
For the Respondents: Shri S. K. Medhi, Ms. M. Das, Shri S. Chetia, Shri S. C. Keyal, Ms. S. P. Upadhyay, Shri B. Gogoi
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to gst registration cancellation notice and subsequent order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. argument regarding cryptic notices and violation of article 21. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondent's justification regarding non-service of enclosures and legal permissibility of retrospective cancellation. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's finding that the notice lacked factual details despite references to attachments. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. setting aside the order to grant a fresh opportunity for a hearing based on complete documentation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT & ORDER
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 s
