Farida Hussain M/S Amazze India vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87985
1 WP-40952-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALPESH Y. KOGJE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
th
ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 40952 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010725752026
FARIDA HUSSAIN M/S AMAZZE INDIA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajvardhan Dutt Pararha - Govt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Jain
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed challenging the order dated 09.07.2026 (Annexure P-8) so also the
order dated 09.06.2026 (Annexure P-4) both passed by the respondent No.3.
By the order dated 09.06.2026, the registration of the petitioner under M.P.
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017( for short ‘SGST Act') has been
cancelled. By the order dated 09.07.2026, the application of the petitioner for
revocation of cancellation, that was filed under Section 30 of the SGST Act
has been rejected.
2. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that though the petitioner has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-11-2026
14:43:23

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87985
2 WP-40952-2026
a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the SGST Act but in the

present case, the business of the petitioner has come to a standstill by
cancellation of SGST registration and rejection of application for revocation
of the said order, which is in gross violation of basic principles of natural
justice. The petitioner is only seeking a fair opportunity to be heard as per the
provisions of SGST Act. The impugned orders having been passed in utter
violation of principles of natural justice and denial of fair opportunity to the
petitioner before cancellation of SGST registration and rejection of
application for revocation of cancellation, the writ petition before this Court
is maintainable as no factual questions are involved at this stage and the
petitioner is only seeking a remand to the Proper Officer. The Proper Officer
may hear the petitioner and then pass an order after adhering to principles of
natural justice as contemplated under Sections 29 and 30 of SGST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the show cause
notice for cancellation of registration dated 05.06.2026 was issued to the
petitioner vide Annexure P-2 and she was directed to file a reply within
seven days and also to appear before the authorities on 16.06.2026 at 11 AM.
The petitioner had filed reply on 06.06.2026. However, on 09.06.2026 by
recording that no reply has been filed, the registration was cancelled, which
is even before expiry of 7 days which was set down for filing of the reply.
The authority did not even wait for the date for personal hearing, which as
per the show cause notice was 16.06.2026.
4. It is further contended that when the petitioner pointed out these
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-11-2026
14:43:23

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87985
3 WP-40952-2026
glaring facts of denial of fair opportunity to the petitioner by filing an

application for revocation of cancellation in terms of Section 30 of SGST
Act, again the same mistake was repeated by the Proper Officer. It is pointed
out that on the application for revocation filed on 09.06.2026, a show cause
notice was issued on 06.7.2026, mentioning that reply has to be filed within
7 days and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Proper Officer on
15.07.2026 for personal hearing. However, within 3 days, that is on
09.07.2026, the application for revocation was also rejected, though the reply
to show cause notice had duly been submitted on 08.07.2026. The authority
did not even wait for the date of personal hearing which was fixed for
15.07.2026 and in a hasty and hurried manner passed an order of rejection of
application for revocation on 09.07.2026.
5. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned orders be set aside and
directions be issued to the Proper Officer to hear the petitioner in terms of
provisions of Sections 29 and 30 of SGST Act and then pass a proper order.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently
supported the impugned orders and submitted that the authorities were not
bound to provide personal hearing to the petitioner and there was no hurdle
in passing an order without waiting for the date of personal hearing. It is
however contended that if this Court passes an order of remand, then the
authorities shall provide personal hearing and pass a fresh order after
considering reply of the petitioner.
7. Upon hearing counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of the record,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-11-2026
14:43:23

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87985
4 WP-40952-2026
it is seen that the show cause notice for cancellation was issued on

05.06.2026, which was replied by the petitioner on 06.06.2026 as per the
screenshot of the GST portal. As per the show cause notice dated
05.06.2026, a time limit of 7 days was set out to file reply to the notice and
the petitioner was directed to appear for personal hearing on 16.06.2026.
8. However, even without waiting for 7 days period to lapse for
submission of reply, the cancellation order was passed on 09.06.2026 itself,
i.e. within 4 days of issuance of show cause notice and even without waiting
for the date of personal hearing to even reach which was fixed for
16.06.2026.
9. The petitioner exercised the statutory right granted to her under
Section 30 of SGST Act and filed an application for revocation of
cancellation order and again the same type of attitude was exhibited by the
Proper Officer, inasmuch as the application was submitted on 09.06.2026
and a notice was issued on 06.07.2026 directing the petitioner to file reply
within 7 working days and to appear before the authority on 15.07.2026 for
personal hearing.
10. However, even without waiting for the 7 days period to lapse for
submission of reply and without waiting for the date of personal hearing i.e.
15.07.2026 to reach, the application for revocation was rejected on
09.07.2026 i.e. within 3 days of issuance of the show cause notice.
11. Therefore, it is a glaring case of failure of principles of natural justice
and the Proper Officer has exhibited utterly hasty and hurried manner in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-11-2026
14:43:23

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87985
5 WP-40952-2026
passing the impugned orders.

12. The proviso to Section 29 (2) of SGST Act contains a clear provision
to grant opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which is as under:-
"Provided that the Proper Officer shall not cancel the
registration without giving the person an opportunity of
being heard."
13. As per Section 30, same provision has been carved out, laying down
the manner in which the application for revocation has to be decided.
Proviso to Section 30 (2) reads as under:-
"Provided that the application for revocation of
cancellation of registration shall not be rejected unless
the applicant has been given an opportunity of being
heard."
14. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 21659 of 2022 (M/s Ultra
Steel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh a& Ors.) has considered the meaning and
purport of expression ‘opportunity of being heard’ as appearing in Sections
29 and 30 of SGST Act in the following manner:-
"10. Meaning thereby that affording of opportunity of
being heard is a pre-condition for exercising the power
of cancellation of registration. The expression
“opportunity of being heard” has been explained time
and again by various decisions of the Apex Court as
well as this Court and other High Courts to include the
following components:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-11-2026
14:43:23

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87985
6 WP-40952-2026
(a) furnishing of reason along with
supporting material to the assessee on the
basis of which the registration is proposed to
be cancelled;

(b) the grant of sufficient opportunity by way
of personal appearance or otherwise as the
case may be (depending upon the textual and
contextual statutory provisions) to the
assessee to respond in writing;
(c) in case no material is supplied or
insufficient reasons are given in the show
cause notice and the assessee seeks proper
reasons and material, then the Revenue is
obliged toextend the time for filing reply by
furnishing proper reasons and supporting
material;
(d) Revenue should also take into account
certain circumstances, which may be beyond
the control of assessee where extension of
time ought to be given considering the
seriousness and urgency of reasons assigned
for extension;
(e) the minimum period after service of a
valid or proper show cause notice, for
submission of reply by the assessee is
prescribed as seven days, which is extendable
on the discretion of the Proper Officer for
justified reasons to be recorded in writing;
(f) in case assessee within seven days or the
extended time fails to file any response in
writing, then the Proper Officer is free to pass
appropriate order; and
(g) in case, assessee submits reply in writing,
then the same isto be considered by passing
an appropriate speaking orderby the
competent authority u/S.30 containing
sufficientreasons to enable the assessee to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-11-2026
14:43:23

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87985
7 WP-40952-2026
avail the remedy ofappeal u/S.107.

10.1 Similar affording of reasonable opportunity is
stipulated while deciding an application for revocation
of cancellation of registration u/S.30."
15. It is settled in law that where there is glaring failure of principles of
natural justice, then alternative remedy is not an absolute bar. Even
otherwise, this petition has not been pressed on merits, but has been pressed
on the anvil of denial of opportunity of hearing and prayer has been made to
remand the matter back to the Proper Officer to pass a lawful order after
hearing the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner need not be relegated to avail
the remedy of statutory appeal.
16. In view of the reasons contained above, we have no doubt that the
order of cancellation of registration (Annexure P-4) so also the order of
rejection of application for revocation of cancellation order (Annexure P-8)
suffer from infirmity and illegality, in as much as they violate the principles
of natural justice (audi alteram partem). Cancellation of registration under
SGST Act has serious civil consequences on the business of the petitioner
and such an order was not expected to be passed by violating not only the
necessary principles of natural justice, but also the mandatory statutory
provisions as laid down in Sections 29 and 30 of SGST Act that ensure fair
opportunity to the assessee.
17. Therefore, the impugned orders Annexure P-4 and P-8 stand
quashed. The Proper Officer shall take fresh decision on the show cause
notice for cancellation of registration.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-11-2026
14:43:23

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87985
8 WP-40952-2026
18. The Proper Officer shall take into consideration the reply to show

cause notice (Annexure P-3) and also grant opportunity of personal hearing
to the petitioner for a date to be fixed by the Proper Officer. The petitioner is
also set at liberty to file any further material and documents before the Proper
Officer as are required to meet out her case, but before the date fixed for
personal hearing. Let decision on the show cause notice for cancellation be
taken afresh within 30 days of submission of copy of this order before the
Proper Officer.
19. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed and disposed
off.
(ALPESH Y. KOGJE)
(VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGE
nks

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-11-2026
14:43:23