Sri Mintu Das vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

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, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1429. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to similar reliefs. The Court quashed and set aside the order of cancellation of registration dated 28.07.2025. The petitioner is directed to file all pending returns from the date of failure to file until the present date within 30 days of the order. The time limit stipulated under Section 73(10)/74(10) of the CGST Act, 2017/AGST Act, 2017 for computation of periods will be reckoned from the date of this order, with an exception for the financial year 2026-27, which will follow Section 44 of the respective Acts. The petitioner will also be liable for arrears of tax, penalty, interest, and late fees.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Mintu Das, operating a proprietorship firm for tour vehicles, is challenging the order dated 28.07.2025 cancelling his GST registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017. The cancellation was initiated due to non-submission of returns, as per Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. A show cause notice was issued on 16.04.2025, suspending the registration. The petitioner contends the show cause notice and the cancellation order were vague, lacking reasons under Section 29. He also claims non-receipt of manual service, with the notice only uploaded on the portal, leading to missed deadlines for reply and hearing. Subsequently, his application for revocation of cancellation was rejected due to elapsed time limits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of cancellation of registration dated 28.07.2025 is liable to be set aside for being vague and lacking reasons as required under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that both the show cause notice and the final cancellation order failed to provide specific reasons for cancellation, making them legally unsustainable. He further contended that the notice was not properly served, as it was only uploaded on the portal and not sent manually, leading to his inability to respond within the stipulated time. The revenue did not record any specific arguments against these points, but implicitly defended the order by its issuance. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to similar reliefs as granted in the case of Motaleb Bhuyan Vs. The State Of Assam And Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1429, given the similar facts? The petitioner relied on the precedent set in the Motaleb Bhuyan case, arguing that his situation mirrored the facts of that case, thus entitling him to similar relief. The revenue did not present arguments against this contention.