Md Industries vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
CWP- 1634-2
IN THE
MD Industries
Union of India CORAM : H
H
Present : M
fo
M
fo
DEEPAK SIB
T 6), the petition cancelled to Thereafter, thr GST registrati The retrospect subject matter
L
A that the petiti intended to ca done through o fully covered 026 (O&M) Sr. No.274
E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH
CWP- 163 Date of De
s
Versus a and others
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Akhil Goyal, Advocate, or the petitioner. Ms. Sidhi Bansal, Advocate, or the respondents. *** BAL, J. (Oral)
hrough a show cause notice da ner was put to notice as to why which no written response w rough order dated 18.11.2024 (A on was retrospectively cancelled tive cancellation of the petition of challenge through this petitio earned counsel for the parties ha A perusal of the show cause not oner was not put to notice th ancel its GST registration with re order dated 18.11.2025. That be in its favour by a recent ju B AND HARYANA AT H 34-2026 (O&M) ecision : 30.04.2026
…Petitioner
…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI ated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P- y its GST registration be not was filed by the petitioner. Annexure P-7), the petitioner’s d with effect from 01.07.2017. ner’s GST registration is the on. ave been heard. tice dated 27.09.2024 reveals at the respondent authorities etrospective effect which was eing so, the petitioner’s case is udgment of this Court dated VANDANA 2026.05.05 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP- 1634-2
2026 in India and anot “ ca A ap ca ap sp C ca ba is w w C ot 14 gr th pu ag m on do su
L distinguish the (supra) to the p
In 27.09.2024 (A through which 026 (O&M)
n CWP No.16770-2024- ‘M/s B ther’ wherein it has been held as f “13. Undoubtedly, there is a ancellation of registration in te ct, subject to the provisions pposite to note that while s ancellation of registration is pparent that such action can be pecific contingencies and that an CGST Act must definitely ref ancellation with retrospective asic, accepted and settled princ s enjoined upon to put the asse which is intended to be taken an which such action is sought to be Court in ORYX Fisheries Pvt. L thers, 2010(13) SCC 427, has he "
It is well se authority, while actin power must act fairl mind while initiating show cause procee person proceeded opportunity of maki proposed charges ind
Thus a show cause n rounds or premises on which ac he present matters, it was incum ut petitioners to notice about gainst them with retrospective mention the material on which re nce mentioned in show cause ocuments are attached, such upplied to petitioners. earned counsel for the respon e applicability of the judgment i petitioner’s case. n light of the above, the impug Annexure P-6) and the order date h the petitioner’s GST registrat Bansal Casting vs. Union of follows:- provision for retrospective erms of Section 29 of CGST as contained therein. It is uch power of retrospective definitely conferred, it is e taken only upon existence of n order under Section 29(2) of flect the reasons for such effect. Furthermore, it is a ciple that concerned authority essee to notice of the action nd reasons or the premise on e taken. Hon'ble the Supreme eld as under:- ettled that a quasi-judicial ng in exercise of its statutory ly and must act with an open g a show cause proceeding. A eding is meant to give the d against a reasonable ing his objection against the dicated in the notice.” notice must contain the basic ction is sought to be taken. In mbent upon authorities to have the proposal to take action effect and supply or at least eliance was placed. Moreover, notice itself, that supporting material should have been (emphasis supplied) ndents has not been able to in M/s Bansal Casting’s case gned show cause notice dated ed 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-7) tion has been retrospectively VANDANA 2026.05.05 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP- 1634-2
cancelled are proceed afresh
Th
Pe
April 30, 202 vandana
Whether speak Whether repor 026 (O&M)
set aside. However, liberty is g against the petitioner, in accordan he petition is allowed in the abov ending application(s), if any, shal (DEEP
J (LAPIT
J
26
king/reasoned :
Yes/No rtable :
Yes/No granted to the respondents to nce with law. ve terms. ll also stand disposed of. PAK SIBAL) JUDGE TA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2026.05.05 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
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.