GST Registration Can’t Be Cancelled Without Proper Notice: Bombay High Court
Court slams tax department for issuing vague show-cause notice devoid of details; says natural justice was violated
Engineering, Design Services Exported To Foreign Group/Sister Company Qualifies As “Export Of Services”: Bombay HC Allows ITC
The Bombay High Court has quashed an order cancelling a taxpayer’s GST registration due to the issuance of a vague and unsubstantiated show-cause notice.
The bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the show-cause notice failed to specify the nature of the alleged fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts under Section 29(2)(e) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax (MGST) Act, 2017. The order of cancellation dated July 7, 2023, was found to be based solely on this deficient notice.
“Merely quoting a section and making general allegations of fraud is not sufficient,” the court ruled. “The noticee must be given a fair opportunity to understand and respond to the specific charges.”
Portal Glitch or Process Failure?
The state tax authorities contended that the original show-cause notice had an attachment containing detailed allegations, which the petitioner failed to produce in court. However, the petitioner presented screenshots of the GST portal showing that no such attachment was visible or served. The government counsel conceded that a technical glitch might have occurred, preventing the display of the complete notice.
The court emphasized that actions based on such vague show-cause notices violate principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. “Our concern is not with the decision itself, but the fairness of the process by which it was reached,” the bench observed.
Delay Not a Bar When Natural Justice Is Breached
The court also rejected the state’s objections regarding delay in filing the writ petition and availability of alternative remedies such as appeal or revocation. It held that in cases involving gross procedural irregularities, constitutional courts can intervene even where other remedies exist.
Case Details
Case Title: Saurabh Sahu Versus The State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 8537 Of 2025
Date: 01 July 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Nirmal Pagaria
Counsel For Respondent: Shruti D. Vyas
Mariya is the Senior Editor at JurisHour. She has 5+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies like LiveLaw & Taxscan.
