M/S Om Enterprises vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
Held
The Court acknowledged that the petition had prima facie merit. It found that the reasons for cancellation of registration, particularly the allegation of the firm's non-existence, were based on material that was vague and generic. The Court noted that the survey report lacked specificity regarding the inquiries made and the identity of the individuals from whom information was gathered, making it difficult for the petitioner to rebut the allegations. Consequently, the Court did not proceed to a final decision on the merits of the cancellation but instead directed the revenue to provide the petitioner with all material being relied upon for the cancellation within one week. Following this, the petitioner would have two weeks to file a reply, after which the revenue would fix a personal hearing and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law. The Court also noted that the petitioner would be within its rights to contend that the registration should not be cancelled retrospectively. The proceedings were to be concluded by December 31, 2026.
Facts
The petitioner, M/S Om Enterprises, had its GST registration cancelled under Rule 21(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, for allegedly not conducting business from its declared place of business or the place of business not being found. The basis for this action was a survey report. The petitioner contended that the survey report was vague and generic, as it merely stated that attempts to contact the petitioner failed and an unidentified person claimed the firm did not exist. The petitioner argued that this material was not specific and could not be rebutted. The petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the proceedings initiated based on this show-cause notice.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration based on a vague and generic survey report, which lacks specific details of inquiries and the identity of persons providing information, is legally sustainable? (Question of law turning on principles of natural justice and due process). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the survey report, forming the basis of the show-cause notice, was inherently flawed due to its vagueness. It failed to disclose the identity of the informant and the particulars of the inquiry, making it impossible for the petitioner to effectively rebut the allegations. The petitioner relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Akash Bansal vs Superintendent Range - 109 Central Goods and Services Tax Department, (2025) SCC OnLine Del 5495, which likely dealt with similar issues of procedural fairness. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or State.
Sections Cited
Rule 21(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4110 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
Heard Ms. Shreya Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the revenue.
Submission is, the registration of the petitioner had been cancelled for the following reason :
"
Rule 21(a) - Person does not conduct any business from declared place of business/place of business not found."
The document appended with the show-cause notice, forming the material basis for such notice is a survey report. That is wholly vague and generic, inasmuch as it merely records that an attempt was made to contact the petitioner on its registered phone number, but no response was received and upon inquiry made from an unidentified and undisclosed person, it was informed that the petitioner firm does not exist. The identity of the person questioned and the particulars of the inquiry have not been disclosed. To that extent, the material relied upon is vague and generic and such as may not be rebutted. Consequently, the proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned sh
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.