Sri Alok Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that the facts of the instant case are similar to those in the case of Motaleb Bhuyan Vs. The State Of Assam And Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1429, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to similar reliefs. The Court set aside and quashed the order of cancellation of registration dated 04.12.2024. The petitioner is directed to file all pending returns within 30 days from the date of the order. The period stipulated in Section 73(10)/74(10) of the CGST Act/AGST Act shall 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 arrears of tax, penalty, interest, and late fees. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Alok Kumar Singh, engaged in works contract services, is challenging the order dated 04.12.2024 cancelling his GST registration. The cancellation was based on non-submission of returns, as per Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. A show cause notice was issued on 07.10.2024, stating that the registration would be suspended from that date. The petitioner argues that the show cause notice and the cancellation order were vague, lacking specific reasons under Section 29 of the CGST Act. He also claims the notice was only uploaded on the portal and not served manually, leading to his unawareness until the reply and hearing period had expired. An application for revocation of cancellation was rejected due to the expiry of the statutory timeline.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of cancellation of registration dated 04.12.2024 is liable to be set aside on the ground of vagueness and lack of reasons, as contemplated under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the non-service of the show cause notice manually, with reliance solely on portal upload, vitiates the cancellation proceedings, especially when the petitioner claims lack of knowledge and inability to respond within the stipulated time? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that both the show cause notice and the cancellation order failed to provide specific reasons for cancellation as required by Section 29 of the CGST Act. He further argues that the cancellation is bad in law due to the lack of manual service of the show cause notice, which prevented him from filing a reply or attending the hearing. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents.