GAHC010024982026 2026:GAU-AS:2289 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/878/2026 SHASHI KUMAR CHOUDHURY SON OF SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF SPACE TOWN HOUSING COMPLEX, BL-4, FLAT- 5J, VIP ROAD, KOLKATA-700052, WEST BENGAL WHO IS THE SOLE PROPRIETOR OF THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN M/S S. K. ENTERPRISES HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS NEAR RITURAJ HOTEL, 3RD FLOOR, TALUKDAR BUILDING KEDAR ROAD, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP METROPOLITAN, ASSAM-781001.

VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

2:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD GUWAHATI-781001.

3:ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CGST RANGE-I GST BHAWAN

2ND FLOOR ROOM NO. 212 KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI-781001.

4:SUPERINTENDENT CGST AND CX I-A RANGE GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD GUWAHATI-781001 Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. ASHOK SARAF, MR P BARUAH,MR. P DAS,MR. N N DUTTA,MR S J SAIKIA,MR P K BORA,B SARMA,MR. A. KAUSHIK Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, GST BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

O R D E R

17.02.2026

1. Heard Dr A. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chetia, learned standing counsel for the CGST. Mr. S Kakati, learned counsel is also present representing the respondent No. 1.

2. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the matter in its entirety, the instant writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself.

3. The petitioner challenges the show-cause notice dated 10.09.2025 issued by the Proper Officer, the order dated 25.08.2025 cancelling the GST registration, and the order dated 31.10.2025 rejecting the application for revocation of the order cancelling the registration.

4. The notice dated 10.09.2025 was issued by the Proper Officer proposing cancellation of GST registration under Rule 21(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, read with Section 16 of the CGST Act.

5. The impugned notice, in its entirety, states that the petitioner has “availed input tax credit in violation of Section 16 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder” and was called upon to show cause as to why registration should not be cancelled.

6. The petitioner filed a detailed reply on 19.08.2025, raising a preliminary objection that the notice does not disclose the tax period, the invoices involved, the supplier concerned, the quantum of the credit alleged to be irregular, etc. and specifically pleads that the show cause notice does not provide the details of the allegation to properly make a reply.

7. In a communication dated 08.08.2025, the Joint Director requested the Principal Commissioner of CGST, Guwahati, to cancel the petitioner's GST registration.

8. It is important to record that such a request was made, as discernible from the aforesaid communication, at a stage when an investigation was going on against the petitioner.

9. In response to such a request, the impugned order cancelling the registration dated 25.08.2025 was issued.

10. Subsequently, the petitioner, by its communication dated 10.09.2025, requested the revocation of the cancellation of his registration pending the investigation.

11. In reference to the prayer of revocation, a communication dated 26.09.2025, purportedly a show-cause notice, was issued; however, the contents of the show-cause notice reflect that the application of the petitioner has already been examined and the same is liable to be rejected for the reason cited in the aforesaid show-cause notice dated 26.09.2025, which is quoted hereinbelow:

“Reason for revocation of cancellation-Others (Please specify)-As per DGGI interim investigation report, the applicant has availed ITC of 8.26 Cr. Without the same being reflected in GSTR-2B. No evidence submitted, condition of 16(2) has been followed. Application for Revocation of Cancellation under Rule 21(e) is liable to