INTRODUCTION:-
This Article aims to provide the recent rulings of High Court on quashing of GST Registration Cancellation. In a series of landmark rulings, High Courts have quashed cancellation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registrations, sending a strong message to tax authorities: vague notices and unreasoned orders cannot override constitutional rights or principles of natural justice. These judgments reaffirm the judiciary’s role in safeguarding businesses against arbitrary administrative action.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. M/s Implex Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. State of U.P. And 3 Ors. [WRIT TAX No. – 1915 of 2025]
In this matter, a SCN dated 12.04.2023 was issued for cancellation of GST Registration due to non-filing of return for six months and thereafter ex-parted Cancellation order was passed on 16.05.2023 has on perusal of the said notice, it shows that neither name of the Proper officer has been mentioned nor its description has been mentioned. Petitioner argued that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the impugned Notice was defective as it did not specify the officer before whom petitioner had to appear.
Once the impugned cancellation order has been passed without putting any proper notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same itself is in violation of principles of natural justice. Further the petitioner was also not afforded any opportunity of being personally heard. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”
The Impugned orders has been passed without application of mind and same does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed.
2. M/S Anil Art And Craft Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another [WRIT TAX No. – 5924 of 2025]
Petitioner’s approached the High Court against the Cancellation Order passed by by Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bhadohi Sector-1, Uttar Pradesh on 15.10.2025. The Court observed that the authority has acted acted carelessly in complete defiance of the minimum requirement of procedural law, inasmuch as, absolutely no reason has been assigned to reject the explanation furnished by the petitioner. By stating that the reply is “not satisfactory”, the said respondent-authority has only indicated the conclusion but has made no disclosure of the reason, to reach that conclusion. further, the Court held-
It is a sine qua non and absolutely fundamental to procedural law as may be plain to a law student that such a requirement is non-negotiable.”
while setting aside the impugned order of cancellation, the Court observed that Neither the petitioner shall remain entitled to issue Tax Invoices nor may be entitled to avail tax ITC or to pass on ITC. Under the GST regime, it announces the economic death of the business entity. Hence, the writ Petition is allowed.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
3. M/s gayatri Steel Company v. The Union of India & Ors [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10359 of 2024]
The petitioner challenged the order of cancellation of registration on the ground of not providing an opportunity of hearing as well as such order was passed without assigning any reason for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court criticized the GST department for failing to comply with its earlier guidelines in Aggrawal Dyeing & Printing v. State of Gujarat, issued two years back.” The Court observed
The aforesaid judgement was rendered in the year 2022. However, in spite of the above direction issued by this Court, the respondent-authorities without following such directions are issuing cryptic notice and order for cancellation of registration number of the petitioner.
The Court held the order of cancellation of registration is passed without giving any reason by the respondent authorities, and appeals filed by the petitioners under Section 107 of the GST Act are also dismissed.
4. GIGAMADE MACHINERIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT
Petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court against the cancellation of registration of the Petitioner Under the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act,207 (‘the GGST Act, 2017’ for short). The Show-cause notice was issued by the Revenue Department under section 29 of the CGST Act r/w Rule 22(1) of the CGST Rules stating that , the Petitioner was found non-existing or non-functioning at the principal place of its business and proposing to cancel the GST Registration of the Petitioner. However, the Impugned SCN, did not disclose the basis for Suo-moto initiating process for cancellation of GST Registration.
Subsequently, an order for Cancellation of GST Registration (the Impugned Order) was passed against the Petitioner without mentioning the reason for the same. Being aggrieved by the order, the Petitioner has this petition. The Court held the SCN is absolutely vague, bereft of any material particulars and the impugned order is also vague and a nonspeaking order.
It cannot be disputed that with cancellation of registration, the dealer is liable to both civil and penal consequences. To say the least, The Authority ought to have at least referred to the contents of the show cause and the response thereto, which was not done. The authority ought to have followed the principles of natural justice, which has not been done in the present case. Not only the order is nonspeaking but cryptic in nature and the reason of cancellation not decipherable therefrom. In such circumstances, the principles of natural justice stand violated and the order needs to be quashed as it entails penal and pecuniary consequences.
DELHI HIGH COURT
5. Sakshi Goyal Proprietor of Mis Parshavnath Industries Vs. Principal Commissioner Central GST
The petitioner, a ghee manufacturer, challenged cancellation of her GST registration dated 27 September 2024. She had already applied for amendment of her business address on 30 August 2024, which was approved on 9 October 2024. However, the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 13 September 2024 was issued at the wrong address, leading to cancellation without proper consideration. The Adjudicating Authority ought to have taken the amended address into account before passing the order.
Be that as it may, the present writ petition only concerns the retrospective cancellation of the GST registration of the Petitioner. The Petitioner’s place of business which was amended ought to have been taken into consideration by the Adjudicating Authority before passing of the impugned order.
The Delhi High Court has held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration without considering the amended business address is unsustainable.
6. M/S FREQUENT LOGISTICS SERVICES PVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT AND ORS. [W.P.(C) 11311/2023]
The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by order dated 08.06.2022, following a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 20.05.2022. The SCN alleged fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts but did not specify details. The GST Cancellation order merely stated “Reply not receive. Hence, registration Suo Moto cancelled,” and provided no reasoning.
The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed on grounds of delay. The department claimed cancellation was due to non‑existence at the principal place of business, but the petitioner had already updated its address in August 2021. The officer inspected the old premises, not the new one. The Court held that-
It is clear from the above that the impugned order is not informed by reason as it does not reflect any intelligible reason as to why the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled. Further, the Show Cause Notice did not disclose that the petitioner’s GST Registration was proposed to be cancelled with retrospective effect. The impugned order for the cancellation of the GST registration also does not reflect any ground to support the decision to cancel the GST registration with retrospective effect.
The High Court set aside both the impugned cancellation order and the SCN. It clarified that officers may take lawful steps in future, but any adverse order must be supported by clear reasons. The Impugned order of cancellation and Show Cause Notice are set aside.
