MP HC Restores GST Registration For Now After Officer Cancelled It And Rejected Revocation Before Reply Deadlines And Hearings

In brief

The question

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration was invalid for failure to provide the opportunity to respond and be heard required by Section 29(2) of the M.P. GST Act.

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed both the registration-cancellation order and the order rejecting revocation.

It also directed

It directed the Proper Officer to reconsider the cancellation show-cause notice, take account of the petitioner’s reply, provide a personal hearing, and allow her to submit further material before that hearing.

The fresh decision was to be made within 30 days of submission of a copy of the Court’s order to the Proper Officer.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of her GST registration on 9 June 2026 and the subsequent rejection, on 9 July 2026, of her application to revoke that cancellation.

¶ 1, 16

The cancellation show-cause notice, issued on 5 June 2026, allowed seven days for a reply and fixed a personal hearing for 16 June 2026. The petitioner submitted a reply on 6 June, but the registration was cancelled on 9 June, before the reply period expired or the hearing date arrived.

¶ 3, 7–8

On her revocation application, a notice issued on 6 July allowed seven working days for a reply and fixed a hearing for 15 July. The petitioner replied on 8 July, but the application was rejected on 9 July, again before the response period expired or the hearing date arrived.

¶ 4, 9–10

Although a statutory appeal was available under Section 107 of the M.P. GST Act, the petitioner sought remand on the ground that she had been denied a fair hearing.

¶ 2, 15

02Issues

i.1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration was invalid for failure to provide the opportunity to respond and be heard required by Section 29(2) of the M.P. GST Act.

¶ 7–8, 12

ii.2. Whether rejection of the petitioner’s revocation application without allowing the stated reply period to expire or holding the scheduled hearing violated Section 30(2) and the principles of natural justice.

¶ 9–14

iii.3. Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the statutory appeal under Section 107.

¶ 15

03Law Applied

Section 29(2) of the M.P. GST Act prohibits cancellation of registration without giving the person an opportunity of being heard, and Section 30(2) prohibits rejection of a revocation application without such an opportunity.

¶ 12–13

In M/s Ultra Steel v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., W.P. No. 21659 of 2022, the Court explained that a fair opportunity includes adequate notice and supporting reasons, sufficient time to reply—at least seven days—and consideration of a written reply through an appropriate, reasoned order; a hearing must also be afforded as required by the statutory context.

¶ 14

A statutory alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction where there is a glaring breach of natural justice.

¶ 15

Provisions in the judgment · 3

M.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 29Section 30Section 107

04Reasoning

The Proper Officer cancelled the registration before the seven-day reply period had expired and before the scheduled hearing, despite the petitioner having submitted a reply.

¶ 7–8

The Officer repeated the same error in the revocation proceedings: the petitioner’s reply was submitted within the stated period, but the application was rejected before that period expired and before the scheduled hearing.

¶ 9–10

These actions denied the opportunity mandated by Sections 29 and 30 and breached audi alteram partem; because the petitioner sought a fresh decision rather than adjudication on the merits, the statutory appeal did not preclude writ relief.

¶ 11, 15–16