Facts of the Case:
In this case, the petitioner was registered under GST with a manufacturing unit in Bulandshahr (U.P.). On 30 August 2024, she applied for amendment of her place of business, which the Department subsequently approved on 9 October 2024. Before the amendment approval, the Department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 13 September 2024, alleging discrepancies and proposing cancellation of registration. An order cancelling registration was passed on 27 September 2024, also during the pendency of the amendment request.
During the earlier hearing (29 October 2025), the Court had directed verification of documents relating to the address amendment. In the subsequent hearing, the Department disclosed ongoing ITC fraud investigations involving related entities in Jammu & Kashmir and Indore. It was also argued that the petitioner had changed addresses multiple times, potentially resulting in incorrect service of the SCN. However, the Court clarified that the writ petition was limited to the retrospective cancellation of the petitioner’s own GST registration, not the broader ITC investigations.
The core challenge in the writ petition, however, related only to the retrospective cancellation of GST registration without considering the amended place of business and without granting adequate opportunity of hearing.
Issue:
Whether the retrospective cancellation of GST registration, issued without considering the petitioner’s amended and approved place of business, and without proper inspection or opportunity of hearing, is sustainable under law.
Held that:
The Court held that once a taxpayer’s request for amendment of the principal place of business is pending or approved, the GST Department must serve notices at the updated address. Passing a cancellation order without doing so violates natural justice. The retrospective cancellation order dated 27.09.2024 was held unsustainable since the Show Cause Notice was possibly issued to an old address, especially when the taxpayer had applied for modification prior to issuance.
The Court directed the Department to re-inspect the amended premises, obtain a physical inspection report, and then resume adjudication of the Show Cause Notice. The Petitioner was allowed to file a reply to the SCN and the Department was directed to provide a personal hearing, reaffirming the requirement of procedural fairness in registration cancellation proceedings.
Even though investigations were ongoing against related entities in different States, the Court clarified that such investigations cannot justify bypassing procedural safeguards while cancelling registration.
The Court emphasized that cancellation of registration must be based on proper verification, inspection, and evidence, not assumptions arising from address changes or external investigations.
Case Name: Sakshi Goyal Proprietor Of M/s. Parshavnath Industries Versus Principal Commissioner Central GST, Delhi Anr. dated 12.11.2025
To read the complete judgment 2025 Taxo.online 2968
