Soni Industries Through Its Proprietor Mr. Sachin Soni vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax And Anr
Held
The Court noted that the Petitioner's GST registration had been restored. The Petitioner's counsel submitted a printout confirming this restoration, which was taken on record. Based on this development, the Court found that the petition had become infructuous. The Court did not delve into the merits of the challenge to the retrospective cancellation of the registration, as the restoration rendered the dispute moot. The principle derived is that if the relief sought by a petitioner is granted during the pendency of the proceedings, the petition may be disposed of as infructuous without adjudicating the underlying issues. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as infructuous.
Facts
The Petitioner, Soni Industries, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated June 25, 2024, and a Show Cause Notice dated September 8, 2023, both issued by the Superintendent, CGST Department. The core of the challenge was the retrospective cancellation of the Petitioner's GST registration, effective from July 1, 2017. The Respondent, Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and another, was represented. During proceedings on September 23, 2025, the Respondent sought time to obtain instructions. Subsequently, on December 16, 2025, the Petitioner's counsel informed the Court that the GST registration had been restored, rendering the petition infructuous. A printout confirming the restoration was submitted and taken on record.
Key Issues
1. Whether the retrospective cancellation of the Petitioner's GST registration with effect from July 1, 2017, is valid and legal? The Petitioner argued that the retrospective cancellation of its GST registration was the primary issue being challenged. The Petitioner contended that the impugned order and Show Cause Notice were illegal. The Respondent's appearance was noted, but no specific arguments were recorded in the judgment. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Respondent, other than seeking time to seek instructions.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 25th June, 2024 passed by the Superintendent, CGST Department (hereinafter ‘impugned order’). The Petitioner also challenges the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 8th September 2023 issued by CGST Department (hereinafter ‘SCN’).
The challenge in this petition is to the retrospective cancellation of its registration with effect from 01 July, 2017. 4. On 23rd September, 2025, ld. Counsel for the Respondent sought time to seek instructions.
Today, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the GST Registration of the Petitioner has been restored and the present T
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.