IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD The Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Aparesh Kumar Singh and The Hon’ble Sri Justice G.M.Mohiuddin Writ Petition No.537 of 2026 Dated: 02.02.2026 Between:

M/s. Trillion Lead Factory Private Limited, (rep. by its Director), Bahadurguda, Shamshabad, Rangareddy, Telangana.

...Petitioner and Superintendent of Central Tax, Shamshabad Division, H.No.1-98/7/43, VIP Hills, Jai Hind Enclave, Madhapur, Madhapur, Hyderabad and 3 others ...Respondents

Order

Heard Ms. Yammanuru Siri Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), duly assisted by Ms. Pravallika, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.4.

2. The impugned show cause notice for cancellation of registration dated 17.12.2025 in Form GST REG-17 has been challenged by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that it does not contain the contents of the charges to which the petitioner has to reply; that it is issued on the dictates of a superior officer i.e., Deputy Director, DGGI, HZU (respondent No.2), vide its communication dated 17.12.2025 addressed to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Shamshabad Division, VIP Hills, Hyderabad (respondent No.3); that without coming to a conclusion on the alleged violation of the provisions of Section 16(2)(b) and 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’), in respect of the investigation conducted by the Deputy Director, DGGI, HZU (respondent No.2), the Proper Officer- Superintendent of Central Tax, Shamshabad Division (respondent No.1) relied upon the same materials to initiate the proceedings for cancellation of registration. Petitioner has submitted two replies to the show cause notice for cancellation of registration (Annexures P.16 and P.17).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in M/s. A1 Adil Traders v. Deputy State Tax Officer¹ and also decisions of Delhi High Court in Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises v. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax, South

2025 (3) TMI 369

Delhi², Ramesh Chander v. Assistant Commissioner of GST, Dwarka Division, CGST Delhi³, Oscar Enterprises v. Commissioner of GST, Delhi⁴, Namdhari Timber Private Limited v. UOI and others⁵, Ajay Gupta v. Sales Tax Officer and another and Sant Ram v. Delhi State GST⁷

4. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CGST submits that the petitioner has understood the contents of the charges from the supporting documents annexed to the show cause notice, which allege violation of Rule 21(e) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short ‘the Rules’), by availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in violation of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and furnished two replies, the first one in Form GST REG-18 (Annexure P.16) and the second one dated 25.12.2025 (annexure P.17) wherein all the allegations relating to availment of ITC from non-existent suppliers have been properly replied to by the petitioner. In such circumstances, interference by this Court at the stage of show cause notice would not be proper. Respondent No.2- Deputy

2

2024 (82) GSTL 119 (Del.)

3

2024 (82) GSTL 119 (Del.)

4

2024 (91) GSTL 134 (Del.)

2025 (10) TMI 542

2025 (9) TMI 1525

2024 (81) GSTL 235 (Del.)

Director, DGGI, HZU, has, after referring to the materials unearthed during investigation against the petitioner of having availed ITC from non-existent/non-operating tax payers, conveyed the information to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Shamshabad Division, CGST, Hyderabad (respondent No.3) with a request to take necessary action in accordance with due procedure and principles of natural justice, a copy of which has also been marked to the Range Officer, Shamshabad Range, Sha