The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside a show cause notice issued for cancellation of GST registration on the ground that it lacked material particulars and violated the principles of natural justice.
The Bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji found that the notice merely reproduced legal provisions without stating any specific facts or allegations. Though it referred to “supportive documents,” no documents were actually attached. The allegations were vague and did not enable the assessee to effectively respond.
The case titled M/s Sachdeva Steel Impex v. Union of India & Ors. arose from a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 03.12.2025 issued in FORM GST REG-17 proposing cancellation of GST registration.
The notice invoked multiple provisions including Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act and Rule 21 clauses (b), (c), (d), (e), and (g), alleging serious violations such as fraud, issuance of invoices without supply, wrongful ITC availment, and non-compliance with statutory provisions.
Buy Now: GST Monthly E-Compilation : March 2026
The Court emphasized that a show cause notice must clearly spell out the basis of allegations so that the noticee can defend itself adequately.
The High Court categorically held that such a notice fails the test of natural justice, as it does not provide meaningful opportunity to respond. Defeats the very purpose of issuance of a show cause notice, which is to inform the assessee of precise allegations.
The Court noted that merely citing statutory provisions without disclosing the underlying facts is insufficient and renders the proceedings unsustainable.
The Court held that the show cause notice dated 03.12.2025 is invalid and liable to be quashed. However, the authorities were granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, after complying with procedural requirements.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Sachdeva Steel Impex Versus UOI
Citation: JURISHOUR-943-HC-2026(P&H)
Case No.: CWP No. 11563 of 2026
Date: 21/04/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: J.S. Bedi, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Ajay Kalra, Senior Standing Counsel
