V S Metals vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, V S METALS, challenged the cancellation of its GST registration, which was made effective retrospectively from 10.03.2020 by an order dated 25.06.2024. The primary ground for challenge was that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued prior to this order did not mention any retrospective cancellation. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment by a Division Bench of the same 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, represented by the Union of India and others, did not dispute the facts or the legal precedent cited by the petitioner.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration retrospectively could not be sustained. This decision was based on the reasoning that the SCN issued did not refer to any retrospective cancellation. The Court found that the controversy was squarely covered by the adjudication in the Division Bench judgment of M/s Bansal Casting, S.K. Enterprises. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders dated 25.06.2024, 30.07.2024, and 14.07.2026. The ratio decidendi is that a retrospective cancellation of GST registration is invalid if the SCN does not provide notice of such retrospective intent. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh SCN and proceed in accordance with the law. No issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect is valid when the Show Cause Notice (SCN) did not indicate any intention for retrospective cancellation, as per Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and relevant rules? The petitioner argued that the impugned order of cancellation, made retrospective from 10.03.2020, was unsustainable because the SCN preceding it did not mention any such retrospective effect. The petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment of the High Court in M/s Bansal Casting, S.K. Enterprises, which presumably dealt with similar circumstances. The revenue did not dispute the facts of the case or the legal position established in the cited precedent.
Sections Cited
Section 29(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****
CWP-31250-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.09.2026 V S METALS ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
….RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:- HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Kapish Chawla, Advocate (through video conferencing) for the petitioner. Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocate for the respondents-Union of India. ***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, CJ (Oral)
The petitioner’s GST registration has been cancelled vide order dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure P-2) with retrospective effect from 10.03.2020. 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(s) 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 and M/s Shree Ram Industries vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2026:PHHC:027747-DB to submit that in such circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the revenue does not RAHUL JOSHI 2026.09.24 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-31250-2026 (O&M)
2 dispute either the facts of the present case or the law laid down by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Bansal Casting, S.K. Enterprises (Supra).
Since, the controversy raised in the present petition is covered by the adjudication in M/s Bansal Casting, S.K. Enterprises (Supra), the impugned orders dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure P-2), 30.07.2024 (Annexure P-4) and 14.07.2026 (Annexure P-6) are ordered to be quashed and the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the law laid down in M/s Bansal Casting, S.K. Enterprises (Supra). However, liberty stands reserved to the respondents to issue a fresh SCN and proceed further in accordance with law.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. [ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] CHIEF JUSTICE [ROHIT KAPOOR]
JUDGE SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 Rahul Joshi
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No 2. Whether Reportable Yes/No RAHUL JOSHI 2026.09.24 10:20 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.