Hi Tech Motors vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Held
The Court held that the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration retrospectively and the SCN issued for this purpose are unsustainable. The reasoning is that the SCN did not provide any intimation or basis for a retrospective cancellation, which is a crucial procedural requirement. The Court found that the present case is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment in M/s Bansal Casting, S.K. Enterprises (Supra). Consequently, the Court quashed the SCN dated 22.04.2026 and the cancellation order dated 01.09.2026. The ratio decidendi is that a retrospective cancellation of GST registration requires a specific mention or justification in the SCN. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh SCN and proceed in accordance with law.
Facts
The petitioner, Hi Tech Motors, challenges the cancellation of its GST registration, which was made effective retrospectively from 11.08.2022, by an order dated 01.09.2026. The cancellation followed a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on 22.04.2026. The primary ground for the challenge is that the SCN did not mention any retrospective cancellation. The petitioner relies on a previous judgment of the High Court in M/s Bansal Casting, S.K. Enterprises vs. Union of India and Another and M/s Shree Ram Industries vs. State of Haryana and Another. The revenue did not dispute the facts or the precedent cited.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration retrospectively can be sustained when the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued did not indicate any intention for retrospective cancellation, as per the provisions of the GST Act and Rules. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contends that the retrospective cancellation of GST registration is invalid because the SCN dated 22.04.2026 did not mention any such retrospective effect. They rely on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Bansal Casting, S.K. Enterprises vs. Union of India and Another and M/s Shree Ram Industries vs. State of Haryana and Another (2026:PHHC:027747-DB). Revenue's argument: The learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute the facts of the case or the legal position laid down in the cited precedent.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
145 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****
CWP-29199-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision:09.09.2026 HI TECH MOTORS ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:- HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Tarang Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab. ***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, CJ (Oral)
The petitioner’s GST registration has been cancelled vide order dated 01.09.2026 (Annexure P-4) with retrospective effect from 11.08.2022. Show Cause Notice (SCN) for cancellation of registration was issued to the petitioner on 22.04.2026 (Annexure P-2). The said cancellation of GST registration is challenged by way of this writ petition primarily on the ground that the SCN issued, pursuant to which impugned order was passed, does not make reference to any retrospective cancellation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Bansal Casting, S.K. Enterprises vs. Union of India and Another
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 Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.