Allowed

Suraj Industries v. Commissioner of Dgst & Anr.

Delhi HC8 Oct 2025W.P.(C)/15219/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court modified a retrospective cancellation order of a GST registration to take effect from the date of the Show Cause Notice, holding that the notice did not contemplate retrospective cancellation. The Court also set aside a related tax demand and verified the petitioner's contact details.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order cancelled retrospectively modified to take effect from date of Show Cause Notice (15th June 2022); demand under Section 73 set aside; petitioner's credentials verified.

Suraj Industries Vs Commissioner of Dgst & Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~118

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 15219/2025

¶4

SURAJ INDUSTRIES .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Tabassum Firdause, Mr. M.A. Ansari, Mr. P.K. Malik, Mr. Ahmed Ansari & Md. Imran Ahmed, Advs. (9718503000)

¶6

versus

¶7

COMMISSIONER OF DGST & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv.

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

¶9

O R D E R % 08.10.2025

¶10

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶11

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , challenging the impugned order dated 31st August, 2023 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 63, by which the GST Registration of the Petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) .

¶12

The brief background is that the Petitioner had filed an application for cancellation of the GST registration on 11^th May, 2022. The said application was considered by the GST Department and a clarification was sought in respect of the same on 14^th May 2022. According to the GST Department, there was a mismatch between GSTR-1 & GSTR-3 for Financial Year 2018-19.

¶13

The application dated 11th May, 2022, for cancellation of GST registration, was rejected vide order dated 15^th June, 2022, passed by Sales Tax

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

W.P.(C) 15219/2025

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/10/2025 at 12:28:13

¶17

Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward-63.

¶18

On the same date i.e., 15th June, 2022, a Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) was issued for cancellation of GST registration, on the ground of non-traceability of the firm and that the contact No. on the GST portal, was not working.

¶19

The aforesaid position is challenged by the Petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the contact No. is still working.

¶20

In view of the reasons stated in the SCN, the impugned order was passed on 31^st August, 2023 by which the GST registration of the Petitioner was cancelled, retrospectively, w.e.f. 1^th July 2017.

¶21

Parallelly, a demand under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act’) was raised against the Petitioner vide Order dated 21^st April, 2024. The demand raised is as under:

¶22

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that since the demand is outstanding, the GST registration cannot be restored till the same is paid.

¶23

Heard. Today, this Court has in W.P.(C) 15326/2025 wherein Order dated 21^st April, 2024, was under challenge, has set aside the same and has remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

¶24

Be that as it may, there was no proposal to cancel the GST registration

Page 2 of 4

W.P.(C) 15219/2025

retrospectively. As per the settled legal position, if a SCN does not contemplate retrospective cancellation of GST Registration, the cancellation cannot be given retrospective effect. This position has been reiterated by this Court in various decisions including in ‘Subhana Fashion v. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax (W.P. (C) 12255/2024)’, ‘M/S Balaji Industries v. The Principal Commissioner CGST Delhi North Commissionerate &Anr. (W.P.(C) 11913/2024)’ and ‘Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises v. Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax (CGST), South Delhi &Anr. (W.P.(C) 8061/2024)’.

¶29

Under these facts and circumstances, the following directions are issued:

¶30

(i) The SCN does not take the ground of retrospective cancellation and therefore, is not tenable.

¶31

(ii) The demand under Section 73 of the CGST Act has been set aside today, by this Court in W.P.(C) 15326/2025 and the matter has now been remanded back.

¶32

(iii) The credentials of the firm are stated to be working which may be verified by the GST Department.

¶33

(iv) The impugned order for cancellation is, accordingly, directed to be modified. The cancellation shall be w.e.f. 15^th June 2022 i.e., the date of SCN.

¶34

Ld. Counsel raises a concern that the contact details of the Petitioner for future purpose are not available. The Petitioner has furnished the same, and is set out below:

¶35

Name: Dhiraj Kathuria Address: Rohini Sector-11, Raja Pur Kalan, Delhi-110085. Mob. No.: 9312623805

¶36

If the GST Department decides to take any action against the Petitioner

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

W.P.(C) 15219/2025

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/10/2025 at 12:28:13

¶41

in respect of any demand, it may do so in accordance with law. 15. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶42

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶43

SHAIL JAIN, J.

¶44

OCTOBER 8, 2025 kk/sm

¶45

Page 4 of 4

¶46

W.P.(C) 15219/2025

¶47

Suraj Industries v. Commissioner of Dgst & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Industries v. Commissioner of Dgst & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Sea I Uw Anil Kumar

Ms Markex Branding Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Dgst Commissioner & Ors.

Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors.

M/S Balaji Enterprises Vs the Principal Commissioner, Dggi, Meerut Zonal Unit & Ors.

Suresh Chand Kashiwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Rekha Dewan Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gopal Bansal Vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax

Ms Markex Branding Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Dgst Commissioner & Ors.

M/S Balaji Enterprises Vs the Principal Commissioner, Dggi, Meerut Zonal Unit & Ors.

Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot (Export)Tughlakabad, Delhi Vs Sudhir Gulati

Amit Kumar Basau & Anr. Vs Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 13 (Special Zone) Zone 12 Delhi & Ors.

Bakhodirjon Sultonov Vs Commissioner of Custom & Ors.

Amit Kumar Basau & Anr. Vs Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 13 (Special Zone) Zone 12 Delhi & Ors.