M/S Shree Maa Sharada Tours And Travels vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the facts of the present case were identical to the facts in the case of OP Constructions (supra). Consequently, the Court found no reason to deviate from the earlier decision. The Court allowed the petition, setting aside both the order dated 29.10.2025 (rejecting the appeal) and the order dated 15.10.2024 (cancelling the GST registration). The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer/Jurisdictional Officer. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show-cause notice within 15 days, and the Assessing Officer/Jurisdictional Officer was directed to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with the law. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Maa Sharada Tours and Travels, filed a writ petition challenging two orders. The first order, dated 15.10.2024, passed by respondent no.3, cancelled the petitioner's GST Registration Number. The second order, dated 29.10.2025, passed by respondent no.2, rejected the petitioner's appeal against the cancellation order on the ground of delay. The petitioner contended that they could not respond to the show-cause notice because it lacked the name, place, and designation of the Jurisdictional Officer. They also argued that the appeal was dismissed mechanically due to delay. The petitioner relied on a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, OP Constructions Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration and the subsequent rejection of appeal are sustainable when the show-cause notice failed to specify the name, place, and designation of the Jurisdictional Officer, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the absence of the Jurisdictional Officer's details in the show-cause notice rendered it invalid, preventing a proper response. They further contended that the appeal was dismissed mechanically on grounds of delay without considering the merits, and cited a precedent (OP Constructions) where a similar issue led to a remand. Revenue's arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate tribunal, which is expected to become functional soon. They also submitted that a registered person under GST should be aware of the details of their Jurisdictional Officer.