Cosmo Beauty World vs. Superintendent, Range 81 CGST & Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Cosmo Beauty World, challenged two orders passed by the Superintendent, Range 81 CGST & Ors. The first order, dated 4th February 2025, cancelled the Petitioner's GST registration. The cancellation was initiated by a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 13th May 2024, citing non-furnishing of returns under Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Petitioner did not file a reply to the SCN, leading to the cancellation of registration effective 31st May 2023. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed an application for revocation of cancellation on 6th June 2025, which was accepted with condonation of delay. However, this revocation application was dismissed by the Respondent on 8th August 2025, stating that during a physical verification, the business was not found existent at the given place of business, and the owner informed that they were not at the given address.
Held
The Court held that both the order dated 4th February 2025, cancelling the GST registration, and the order dated 8th August 2025, dismissing the revocation application, were to be set aside. The Court observed that there were deficiencies in both the SCN and the order rejecting the revocation application. While acknowledging the Petitioner's fault in not filing a reply or attending personal hearings, the Court deemed it appropriate to set aside the orders due to the potentially difficult consequences of GST registration cancellation. The matter was reverted to the stage of the SCN. The Petitioner was directed to file a reply to the SCN by 30th September 2025, explaining the non-furnishing of returns under Section 39 of the CGST Act and providing details of their business, including any new address and contact information. A personal hearing would then be granted to the Petitioner, and an order passed in accordance with law. The issue of whether the Petitioner was conducting its business at the given address was to be addressed in the reply.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 4th February 2025, cancelling the Petitioner's GST registration, is valid, considering the alleged deficiencies in the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and the subsequent proceedings, particularly in light of Section 39 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the order dated 8th August 2025, dismissing the Petitioner's application for revocation of GST registration cancellation, is sustainable, given that the Petitioner's business was allegedly not found at the given address during physical verification? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that there were deficiencies in the SCN and the subsequent orders. While the Petitioner admits fault for not filing a reply or attending personal hearings, they argue that the cancellation of registration has difficult consequences. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the Revenue or Respondents. However, the basis for the dismissal of the revocation application was the non-existence of the business at the stated address during physical verification.
Sections Cited
Section 39
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 25.08.2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 4th February, 2025 passed by Respondent No.1, cancelling the GST Registration of the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner is also challenging the order dated 8th August, 2025 whereby the Petitioner’s application for revocation of order of cancellation has been dismissed by Respondent No.1. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner herein is that initially in the Show Cause Notice dated 13th May, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the SCN’), which led to the impugned order dated 4th February, 2025, the only ground given for cancellation of registration was that the returns were not furnished properly by the Petitioner under Section 39 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. 4. Pursuant to the said SCN, no reply was filed by the Petitioner and the order for cancellation came to be passed on 4th February, 2025, cancelling the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/08/2025 at 12:22:24 GST registration of the Petitioner w.e.f 31st May, 2023. 5. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an application dated 6th June, 2025, seeking revocation of the order of cancellation, but the same was filed belatedly. The said application was accepted by the Department on 11th June, 2025 and the delay in filing was condoned.
Finally, on 8th August, 2025, the said application for revocation was also rejected in the following terms:- “Reason for revocation of cancellation - Others (Please specify) - During the PV, no such business in the name & style was found existent at the given PPOB. On contacting the given No.9910495222 Sh. Vikas, owner of the firm informed that they are not at the given address. Hence the verification could not be completed. Please explain why your request should not be rejected.”
A perusal of the record would show that there are several deficiencies in the SCN, as also in the final order for rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation dated 8th August, 2025. Even the Petitioner is at fault in this case, as the Petitioner has not taken any steps to file a reply or made any attempts to attend the personal hearings arising from the SCN.
Under these circumstances, since the GST registration cancellation can affect the Petitioner with difficult consequences, it is deemed appropriate to set aside, both the orders dated 4th February, 2025 and 8th August, 2025. The matter is thus reverted to the stage of the SCN.
The Petitioner shall also show as to how it was conducting its business, as one of the reasons for rejecting the application seeking revocation of cancellation was that the Petitioner was not found existing at the given place of business. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/08/2025 at 12:22:24 10. The Petitioner-Mr. Vikas has also informed the Department that he is no longer working at the said address of business.
Let the Petitioner file a reply to the SCN and explain as to why the returns were not furnished properly by the Petitioner under Section 39 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Along with the reply to the SCN, the details of the Petitioner’s business new address, if any, including the contact details, etc. shall also be furnished to the Department. The said reply shall be filed by 30th September, 2025. 12. After the reply is filed, the Petitioner shall be given a personal hearing. The notice for personal hearing shall be served on the following email address and mobile nos.:- Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate Email: msgs1963@gmail.com Mobile. No: 9811113381 After hearing the Petitioner, the order shall be passed in accordance with law.
The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. AUGUST 25, 2025 sk/ss This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/08/2025 at 12:22:24
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.