M/S Shiv Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shiv Enterprises, challenged a show cause notice dated July 7, 2025, and an order dated August 4, 2025, which cancelled its GST registration. The respondents are the Union of India and other authorities. The parties agreed that the petitioner's case was covered by a recent judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in M/s Bansal Casting vs. Union of India and another, dated February 20, 2026. The judgment does not specify the tax period or the amount in dispute. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's case was covered by the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench in M/s Bansal Casting vs. Union of India and another. Based on this consensus between the parties, the Court allowed the petition. The impugned show cause notice dated July 7, 2025, and the order dated August 4, 2025, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the respondent-authorities to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that if a case is factually and legally identical to a previously decided case by a Co-ordinate Bench, the same outcome should follow. The operative direction was the setting aside of the impugned notice and order, with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's GST registration was liable to be cancelled based on the show cause notice and the subsequent order, considering the precedent set in M/s Bansal Casting vs. Union of India and another? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that its case is squarely covered by the judgment in M/s Bansal Casting, implying that the cancellation of registration in that case was found to be erroneous. Therefore, the petitioner contended that the same relief should be granted to it. The respondents, Union of India and others, agreed with the petitioner that the case was covered by the Bansal Casting judgment. This implies they did not contest the petitioner's claim that the precedent was applicable and binding.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No. 111 CWP-25176-2025 Date of decision : 09.04.2026 M/s Shiv Enterprises
.…. Petitioner Versus Union of India and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, with
Ms. Geetika Sharma, Advocate, for the UOI.
* * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the petitioner’s case is covered in its favour by a recent judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 20.02.2026 rendered in CWP-16770-2024-M/s Bansal Casting vs. Union of India and another.
In the light of the afore consensus, this petition is allowed in terms of M/s Bansal Casting’s case (supra), resulting in the setting aside of the impugned show cause notice dated 07.07.2025 and the order dated 04.08.2025 cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration with liberty to the respondent- authorities to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law.
The contact details of the petitioner shall be shared with the respondent-authorities for future reference/communication within two weeks.
[DEEPAK SIBAL]
JUDGE
2026
[LAPITA BANERJI] shamsher
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.04.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh
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.