01Facts
The Proper Officer issued a show-cause notice on 16 July 2026 proposing cancellation of the petitioner’s CGST registration on the ground that it was allegedly non-existent at its registered principal place of business and no business activity was observed there.
¶ 1–7The petitioner replied on 27 July 2026.
¶ 1–7Although the notice referred to a personal hearing and warned of an ex parte decision if the petitioner failed to appear, it specified no hearing date, time, or venue.
¶ 1–7The Proper Officer cancelled the registration on 7 September 2026 without fixing or holding a personal hearing.
¶ 1–7The petitioner sought judicial review on the ground that the cancellation violated natural justice and Section 29 of the CGST Act.
¶ 1–702Issues
i.Whether cancellation of the petitioner’s CGST registration without fixing or providing a personal hearing violated the opportunity-of-being-heard requirement under Section 29(1) of the CGST Act
¶ 2–4, 6–9ii.Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition despite the availability of statutory remedies, where the challenge was based on an alleged denial of natural justice
¶ 1103Law Applied
The proviso to Section 29(1) of the CGST Act prohibits cancellation of registration without giving the person an opportunity of being heard.
¶ 9In M/s Ultra Steel v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., W.P. No. 21659 of 2022, the Court explained that this opportunity includes a meaningful chance to respond and, where contemplated, a personal hearing; a written reply must be considered in a reasoned order.
¶ 10A statutory alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction where there is a manifest failure of natural justice.
¶ 11Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 29Section 30
Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 Section 29Section 30Section 107
04Reasoning
The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice, but the notice’s reference to a personal hearing was ineffective because it gave no date, time, or venue.
¶ 6–9, 12–13The Proper Officer nevertheless cancelled the registration without arranging a hearing or otherwise affording the contemplated opportunity.
¶ 6–9, 12–13Given the serious civil consequences of cancellation, this failure breached both the principles of audi alteram partem and the statutory safeguard in Section 29(1).
¶ 6–9, 12–13Since the petition challenged the denial of a hearing rather than the merits of cancellation, the availability of an appeal did not preclude writ relief.
¶ 1105Holding
The High Court held that the cancellation order was unlawful for violating natural justice and Section 29(1),
¶ 13–16quashed the order dated 7 September 2026, and directed the Proper Officer to reconsider the show-cause notice, take the petitioner’s reply into account, and provide a personal hearing.
¶ 13–16The petitioner may submit further material before the hearing, and the fresh decision must be made within 30 days of submission of the Court’s order to the Proper Officer.
¶ 13–16The petition was allowed and disposed of.
¶ 13–16Original Court PDF
M/S Owais Traders (Trade Name) Mohmood Javed (Legal Name )vsUnion Of India
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
