Cancellation of GST Registration for Rule 10A violation requires Form GST REG-31 and thirty-day notice.

The petitioner, a private limited company registered under the CGST Act since 2017, received a Show-Cause Notice (SCN) dated 19.05.2025 seeking cancellation of its GST registration for alleged violations of Rule 10A (failure to furnish bank details).

The SCN was issued in Form GST REG-17, gave only seven days to respond, and failed to specify a date or time for a hearing.

On 09.06.2025, the Proper Officer passed an order cancelling the registration, effective immediately, citing the petitioner’s failure to reply.

The petitioner’s subsequent attempts to regularize bank details and file for revocation through the common portal were blocked due to the expiration of the limitation period.

1. Whether the Proper Officer followed the mandatory statutory procedure for cancelling a GST registration based on a violation of Rule 10A.

2. Whether the issuance of an SCN in Form GST REG-17 and providing only seven days for a reply (instead of Form GST REG-31 and thirty days) constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory prescriptions.

The court primarily applied Section 29(2)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, which allows for registration cancellation for contravention of prescribed rules.

Rule 21A(2A)(b) mandates that for violations of Rule 10A, the registration must first be suspended and an SCN issued specifically in Form GST REG-31, providing thirty days to explain why registration should not be cancelled.

Rule 22 generally provides for SCNs in Form GST REG-17 with a seven-day response period for other classes of violations.

The court reasoned that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for an act to be performed, it must be done in that manner only.

The Proper Officer incorrectly utilized Form GST REG-17 (under Rule 22) instead of the specifically mandated Form GST REG-31 (under Rule 21A(2A)(b)) for a Rule 10A violation.

By providing only seven working days to respond—rather than the statutorily required thirty days—and passing the cancellation order before those thirty days had even elapsed, the respondent deprived the petitioner of an effective and reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The SCN was defective as it failed to provide a specific date or place for a personal hearing ("undefined at undefined").

The SCN dated 19.05.2025 and the Order of Cancellation dated 09.06.2025 were set aside and quashed. The respondents were directed to restore the petitioner’s GST registration immediately.