Facts of the Case:

In this case, the Proper Officer on 10.06.2024 issued a Show-Cause Notice proposing cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration on the ground of violation of Rule 10A read with Rule 21(d) of the CGST Rules, alleging failure to furnish bank account details within 30 days of registration.  The Show-Cause Notice, issued in Form GST REG-17, was merely uploaded on the GST portal and no individual communication was made. The notice required the petitioner to respond within seven days and simultaneously suspended the registration from 10.06.2024.

According to the petitioner, the notice escaped her attention due to lack of personal intimation. On 04.07.2024, the respondent passed an order cancelling the GST registration with effect from the said date, recording that no reply had been furnished and that the petitioner was liable for cancellation under Rule 10A. After cancellation, the petitioner attempted to upload bank details in Form REG-14 and file an application for revocation; however, the GST portal did not permit filing, citing expiry of limitation. Aggrieved by the procedural infirmities and inability to file revocation, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the Show-Cause Notice dated 10.06.2024 and the cancellation order dated 04.07.2024.

Issue:

Whether the cancellation of GST registration on the ground of violation of Rule 10A was legally sustainable when (i) the Show-Cause Notice was issued in the wrong statutory form—Form GST REG-17 instead of the mandatory Form GST REG-31 as prescribed under Rule 21A(2A), (ii) the petitioner was granted only seven days to respond instead of the statutorily mandated 30 days, and (iii) the cancellation order was issued prematurely before expiry of the 30-day period, thereby violating statutory rules and principles of natural justice.

Held that:

The Court observed that Rule 21A(2A) of the CGST Rules mandates that where violation of Rule 10A is alleged, the taxpayer must be issued a Show-Cause Notice specifically in Form GST REG-31, highlighting the non-compliance and granting not less than 30 days’ time to explain why registration should not be cancelled. In the present case, the issuance of the notice in Form REG-17 and granting only seven days’ time amounted to a clear breach of statutory procedure and principles of natural justice. 

The Court emphasized the settled legal principle that when a statute prescribes a particular manner of performing an act, it must be performed strictly in that manner and in no other. Further, the officer cancelled the registration prior to expiry of the statutory 30-day period, thereby negating the opportunity of effective hearing.

In view of these procedural lapses, wrong form of notice, inadequate time, and premature cancellation. The Court held that the proceedings stood vitiated.

The High Court held that the cancellation of GST registration was unsustainable in law and proceeded to quash both the Show-Cause Notice dated 10.06.2024 and the cancellation order dated 04.07.2024.

Case Name: Mrs Shobnam Ara Begom Mazumder @ Sabnamara Begum Mazumder Versus The Union of India, The Principal Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax Central Excise And Customs Guwahati, The Superintendent Central Goods And Service Tax Hailakandi Range. dated 05.12.2025.

To read the complete judgment 2025 Taxo.online 3202