Hanumant Baburao Ekwade vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated November 17, 2025, for the cancellation of GST registration was unsustainable in law. The Court found force in the Petitioner's submission that the show-cause notice dated September 22, 2025, was defective because it failed to provide specific allegations supported by facts and particulars concerning wilful misstatement and suppression of facts. This deficiency prevented the Petitioner from submitting an effective reply, thereby causing serious prejudice and constituting a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court relied on the decision in Nirakar Ramchandra Pradhan Vs. Union of India & Ors., which established that proceedings for cancellation of GST registration based on a defective notice are unsustainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The Authority was granted liberty to issue a fresh show-cause notice in accordance with law within 60 days from the receipt of the authenticated copy of the order, providing the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity to submit a reply. The Petitioner's GST registration was restored with immediate effect.

Facts

The Petitioner, Hanumant Baburao Ekwade, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated November 17, 2025, issued by the GST Authorities. The Petitioner contended that the order, which cancelled his GST registration, was based on a defective show-cause notice that lacked specific reasons and violated principles of natural justice. The GST Authorities issued a show-cause notice on September 22, 2025, and the Petitioner submitted a reply on September 28, 2025. The impugned order cited reasons such as registration obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, and non-conduct of business from the declared place of business, or issuing invoices without supply. The Petitioner argued that the show-cause notice did not provide sufficient particulars to allow him to effectively defend himself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order for cancellation of GST registration dated November 17, 2025, is liable to be set aside on the ground that it was issued based on a defective show-cause notice, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as per Section 29(2)(e) and Rule 21(a) and 21(b) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the show-cause notice dated September 22, 2025, was defective as it did not contain specific allegations supported by facts and particulars regarding wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. This lack of specificity prevented the Petitioner from submitting an effective reply, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner relied on the decision in Nirakar Ramchandra Pradhan Vs. Union of India & Ors., which held that GST registration cancellation proceedings based on a defective notice are unsustainable. Respondents' Contention: The Respondents prayed for time to file a reply. However, the Court noted that the issue was a question of law covered by the precedent cited by the Petitioner, making a reply unnecessary.