Ms Akher Ali vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the facts of the present case are similar to those in the case of Motaleb Bhuyan Vs. The State Of Assam And Ors, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1429. Based on this precedent, the Court found the petitioner entitled to similar reliefs. Consequently, the order of cancellation of registration dated 24.11.2025 was set aside and quashed. The petitioner was directed to file all pending returns from the date of failure until the present date within 30 days. The time period stipulated in Section 73(10)/74(10) of the CGST Act, 2017/AGST Act, 2017, for recovery proceedings, will be computed from the date of this order, except for the financial year 2026-27, which will be governed by Section 44. The petitioner is also liable to pay all arrears, including tax, penalty, interest, and late fees.

Facts

The petitioner, Ms. Akher Ali, a proprietorship firm registered under the CGST Act, 2017, is challenging the order dated 24.11.2025 cancelling its GST registration. The cancellation was initiated due to non-submission of returns, as required by Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. A show cause notice was issued on 16.10.2025, also stating that the registration would be suspended from that date. The petitioner contends that the show cause notice and the cancellation order were vague, lacking specific reasons under Section 29 of the CGST Act. Furthermore, the petitioner claims it was unaware of the cancellation as the notice was only uploaded on the portal and not served manually, and it is not well-versed with the portal. An appeal for revocation of cancellation was rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) on 15.09.2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of cancellation of registration dated 24.11.2025, issued under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for being vague and lacking reasons. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that both the show cause notice and the final order of cancellation failed to provide specific reasons as mandated by Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017. They also contended that the cancellation notice was not properly served, as it was only uploaded on the portal and not delivered manually, leading to the petitioner's lack of awareness due to unfamiliarity with the portal. The petitioner relied on the principle that procedural fairness requires clear communication of reasons for adverse actions. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state authorities in response to the petitioner's contentions regarding vagueness, lack of reasons, or service of notice. The court noted that the issue was covered by a previous judgment.