M/S Anay Trading Trade Name Rajesh Maravi Legal Name vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 29.11.2024, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, was unsustainable on its face. The Court found that the order contained contradictory statements: it first stated that no reply to the show cause notice was submitted, and then in a subsequent part, it mentioned that the petitioner's reply was unsatisfactory. The Court reasoned that these two statements could not coexist. Furthermore, the Court noted that under Section 29(2)(e), the adjudicating authority is required to provide a specific finding on which of the alleged circumstances (fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts) led to the cancellation, and a general order covering all allegations is not permissible. Therefore, the order was quashed. The matter was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Sagar Circle, Sagar, to decide afresh in accordance with the law. The petitioner was directed to appear on 09.02.2026 with a certified copy of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Anay Trading (Legal Name: Rajesh Maravi), filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 29.11.2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Sagar Circle, Sagar. This order cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The cancellation was based on a show cause notice issued on 27.09.2024 under Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act, alleging registration was obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The petitioner claims to have submitted a detailed reply on 09.10.2024. However, the impugned order stated that no reply was filed and the petitioner did not appear for a personal hearing, while also noting the reply was unsatisfactory. The order itself contained contradictory statements regarding the submission and satisfaction of the petitioner's reply.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 29.11.2024, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, is a speaking order as required by law, particularly under Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the impugned order is sustainable on its face given the contradictory statements regarding the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was a non-speaking order and unsustainable on its face. They contended that the order contained contradictory statements, first stating no reply was filed and then stating the reply was unsatisfactory. The petitioner asserted that they had indeed filed a detailed reply. The revenue/State did not file any reply or present arguments in response to the petition.