Vijendra Singh vs. Superintendent Range Iv Bally Ii Division Howrah Commissionerate And Anr

Facts

The petitioner, Vijendra Singh, challenged an order dated 27.07.2026 by the Superintendent, Range IV Bally II Division Howrah, which cancelled his GST registration retrospectively from 16.07.2026. The petitioner argued that the cancellation was based on a lack of ownership of the property, which is beyond the jurisdiction of Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 21 of the CGST Rules, 2017. He contended that he had obtained No Objection Certificates from all co-owners and was conducting bonafide manufacturing activities. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed that the impugned order erroneously stated no reply was filed, despite his detailed reply dated 23.07.2026 being submitted and acknowledged. The respondent authorities opposed, stating the petitioner failed to produce relevant property documents during the personal hearing.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was passed in a mechanical manner, without proper application of mind, and without considering the reply filed by the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. The Court found that the respondent No. 1 erroneously recorded that no reply had been filed, despite the petitioner submitting a detailed reply dated 23.07.2026, which was acknowledged. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 27.07.2026 and the consequential order dated 16.06.2026. The matter was remanded to the respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration, with a direction to reconsider the petitioner's reply dated 23rd July 2026 and pass a speaking and reasoned order within three weeks, affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of personal hearing. The respondent was also directed to arrive at a logical and conclusive finding regarding the restoration of registration and, if satisfied with the petitioner's credentials, activate the portal credentials within a week of the final decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration on the ground of lack of exclusive ownership of the property, despite producing No Objection Certificates from co-owners, is legally sustainable under Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 21 of the CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the cancellation was without jurisdiction as neither Section 29(2) nor Rule 21 mandates cancellation for want of exclusive ownership. He asserted that he had obtained NOCs from all owners and was conducting bonafide activities. He also argued that the impugned order erroneously stated no reply was filed, despite his detailed reply dated 23.07.2026 being submitted and acknowledged. Revenue's arguments: The respondent GST authorities opposed the submissions, arguing that the petitioner failed to produce relevant documents pertaining to the property during the personal hearing.