Abdul Majid vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that the facts of the instant case were similar to those in the case of Motaleb Bhuyan Vs. The State Of Assam And Ors, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1429, and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to similar reliefs. The Court found it pertinent to note that the issue was no longer res integra. Consequently, the order of cancellation of registration dated 12.12.2025 and the order of rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation dated 18.03.2026 were set aside and quashed. The petitioner was directed to file all pending returns within 30 days from the order date. The period stipulated in Section 73(10)/74(10) of the CGST Act, 2017/AGST Act, 2017 was to be computed from the date of the instant order, except for the financial year 2026-27. The petitioner was also made liable to pay arrears of tax, penalty, interest, and late fees. The ratio decidendi is that where a GST registration cancellation and subsequent revocation rejection are based on vague notices and lack of proper service, violating natural justice, and such facts mirror a precedent, similar relief should be granted.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. R.A. Enterprise, a contractor and supplier registered under the CGST Act, 2017, approached the Gauhati High Court challenging the order of cancellation of its GST registration dated 12.12.2025. 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 07.07.2025, also stating suspension of registration. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice and the cancellation order were vague, lacking specific reasons under Section 29 of the CGST Act. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed lack of knowledge of the notice as it was only uploaded on the portal and not served manually, leading to the expiry of the reply and hearing period. An application for revocation of cancellation filed on 06.02.2026 was rejected on 18.03.2026 for non-submission of returns and discharge of tax liabilities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of cancellation of registration dated 12.12.2025 and the subsequent rejection of the revocation application dated 18.03.2026 are liable to be set aside on the grounds of vagueness and lack of proper service of the show cause notice, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as contemplated under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice dated 07.07.2025 was vague, failing to provide specific reasons for cancellation as required by Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner further contended that the cancellation order dated 12.12.2025 also lacked assigned reasons. Crucially, the petitioner claimed no manual service of the show cause notice, relying solely on portal upload, which they were not conversant with, leading to their inability to respond within the stipulated time. The rejection of the revocation application was also challenged on similar grounds. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and others, did not present specific arguments on the vagueness or service of notice in the provided text. Their defense for rejecting the revocation application was based on the petitioner's failure to submit due GST returns up to the date of cancellation and discharge due tax, interest, and penalty as per Rule 23 of CGST Rules, 2017.