M/S Shri Radhey Traders vs. Superintendent CGST
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/S Shri Radhey Traders, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by an order dated 29.05.2025. The cancellation was based on the ground that the registration was obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, as per Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act. The petitioner also challenged a subsequent order dated 09.07.2026, which dismissed its appeal against the cancellation order on the grounds of being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice lacked specific details regarding the alleged fraud, misstatement, or suppression of facts, preventing it from adequately responding.
Held
The Court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration could not be sustained. The reasoning was that the show cause notice and the subsequent impugned orders failed to provide specific factual details to substantiate the allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The Court noted the Revenue's admission that no such details were provided. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders. The ratio decidendi is that for a cancellation of registration based on fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, the show cause notice must contain specific factual allegations to enable the assessee to respond. The Court allowed the writ petition and left it open for the department to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with law. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act is sustainable when the show cause notice and subsequent orders do not provide specific factual details of the alleged fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a party alleging fraud must specifically state the facts forming the basis of such an allegation. In the absence of any factual foundation in the show cause notice, the petitioner was unable to respond effectively, rendering the cancellation order invalid. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the Revenue conceded that the show cause notice and the impugned orders only stated the ground of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts without providing specific details.
Sections Cited
Section 29(2)(e)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.05.2025, by which the registration of the petitioner- firm has been cancelled for the following reason :- “1. Section 29(2)(e)-registration obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.”
The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 09.07.2026, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner- firm has been dismissed on the ground that it was filed beyond the limitation prescribed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice dated 23.04.2025 issued to the petitioner- firm before cancellation of the GST registration except for stating that the registration was obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts does not disclose the 1
UKHC010153402026
2026:UHC:7890-DB
facts, on basis of which the department had reached to the said conclusion.
The submission is that in case a party alleges fraud, the facts, on basis of which the said allegation has been made, have to be specifically stated. However, in the instant case in absence of any factual foundation, on basis of which the aforesaid allegation was made against the petitioner-firm, the petitioner-firm was not in a position to respond to such a notice.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue accepts that in the show cause notice, as well as in the impugned orders, the only ground stated for cancellation of GST registration is fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, without giving the details thereof.
In the absence of any factual details, as to how there was fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are, hereby, quashed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It is left open to the department to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with law. 2
UKHC010153402026
2026:UHC:7890-DB
All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 02nd September, 2026 Rahul 3
RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66 e61bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A19 2FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A4 898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2026.09.02 15:44:16 +05'30'
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.