THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.9271 of 2025 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice)

Sri Mohammed Rafi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for respondents.

2. With the consent finally heard.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of cancellation of registration dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) is based on cryptic show-cause notice dated 18.10.2024. Neither in the show-cause notice nor in the impugned order minimum essential factual details were not mentioned on the strength of which breach is alleged. In the absence of reasons, the show-cause notice and impugned order of cancellation of registration cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The curtains were already drawn on this aspect by this Court in W.P.No.24494 of 2024, dated 09.09.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order.

5. We have heard at length.

6. This Court in the W.P.No.24494 of 2024, dated 09.09.2024, opined as thus:

“5. In W.P.No.17400 of 2024, this Court at relevant paragraphs opined as under:

“6. The singular reason assigned in the impugned notice dated 29.02.2024 reads asunder:

“1. Section 29(2)(e)-registration obtained by means of fraud, willful misrepresentation or suppression of facts”.

Apart from this bald statement, there exists nothing in the show cause notice which can throw light as to what is the nature of ‘fraud’ or ‘willful misrepresentation’ or ‘suppression of fact’ by the petitioner. Thus, show cause notice is cryptic and an example of non application of mind. In absence of factual basis and necessary details, notice becomes vulnerable.

7. This Court, recently, considered this aspect in T S R Exports (supra) and held as under:

“9. We find subsistence in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the factual backdrop or the reason on the strength of which, conclusion of fraud or misstatement or suppression of facts was drawn is totally absent in the show cause notice. The show cause notice, in our considered opinion, should spell out the factual backdrop of breach, on the strength of which the department has rejected and concluded that Section 29 (2) (e) of the Act, can be invoked. If minimum factual backdrop and nature of breach is not mentioned with accuracy and precision, the petitioner was not in a position to file reply.

10. The Apex Court expressed the need of issuance of such notice in Canara Bank vs. Debasis Das [2003] 4 SCC 557, at para No.15, which reads as under:

“15. ...Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time…”

11. In the Rajesh Kumar vs. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 168/287 ITR 91/[2007] 2 SCC 181, the Apex Court at para No.61, held as under:

“61. ...The notice issued may only contain briefly the issues which the assessing officer thinks to be necessary. The reasons assigned therefor need not be detailed ones. But, that would not mean that the principles of justice are not required to be complied with. Only because certain consequences would ensue if the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, the same by itself would not mean that the court would not insist on complying with the fundamental principles of la