M/S Sakshi Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Maneesh Singh vs. Additional Commissioner Appeals

Held

The Court found that while a show cause notice for cancellation was issued on 12.08.2024 and an order dated 12.09.2024 was passed, followed by the appellate authority's dismissal on 15.09.2025, it was not a case where the opportunity of hearing was entirely absent. However, considering the petitioner's adversity and desire to re-enter the tax regime, and acknowledging that it would be in the department's interest to bring the petitioner into the formal economy for regular tax collection, the Court set aside the impugned orders. The petitioner was directed to submit pending GST returns for the period of cancellation. Upon submission of these returns, the authority was to consider the case for revocation of registration. As a consequence of the default, the petitioner was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the department within two months. The ratio decidendi is that while procedural lapses might exist, courts can exercise discretion in the interest of revenue and to facilitate compliance, especially in cases of genuine hardship, by directing submission of pending returns and considering revocation upon payment of costs.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sakshi Enterprises, sought to challenge an order dated 15.09.2025 by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal, which dismissed their appeal against a prior order dated 12.09.2024. The earlier order had rejected the petitioner's application for revocation of GST registration cancellation. The petitioner's registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GST returns for the year 2024, attributed to adverse family circumstances. The petitioner claimed a lack of sufficient opportunity for hearing. The respondents contended that sufficient opportunity was provided and suggested the petitioner apply for fresh registration. The petitioner, facing adversity, sought a chance to resume business and pay taxes.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was denied sufficient opportunity of hearing before the cancellation of their GST registration, as per Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 22 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were not given a sufficient opportunity of hearing, and if heard, they would have presented reasons for the non-submission of GST returns. They sought parity with a previous High Court order (W.P.No.22500/2024). Revenue's contention: The respondents referred to Sections 25, 29, and 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Rules 21(a) and (h), 22, and 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017, asserting that the petitioner was indeed given sufficient opportunity of hearing. They suggested the petitioner could apply for fresh registration.