Allowed

M/S Jain Metalloys v. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax North Delhi

Delhi HC6 Mar 2025W.P.(C)/2864/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition, finding that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration with retrospective effect from 01.07.2022 was unreasoned and unsustainable. The judgment quashed the retrospective date, modified the effective cancellation date to 21.06.2023, and restored the registration. It emphasized that retrospective cancellation requires objective justification and must

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned orders quashed; GST registration restored with effect from 21.06.2023; retrospective date of 01.07.2022 quashed; petitioner to file requisite returns.

M/S Jain Metalloys Vs Principal Commissioner of Goods and… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~96

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 2864/2025

¶4

M/S JAIN METALLOYS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pranay Jain and Mr. Karan Singh, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX NORTH DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jatin Singh, SSC and Mr. Shivam Gaur, Adv.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶9

O R D E R % 06.03.2025

¶10

CM APPL. 13600/2025 (Ex.)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

The application shall stand disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 2864/2025

¶14

The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:

¶15

“a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to cancel the GST registration of the petitioner w.e.f. 21.06.2023;

¶16

b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside orders dated 06.11.2023 and 20.05.2024;

¶17

c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside Show cause notices dated 21.06.2023 and 08.05.2024;

¶18

d) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

¶19

W.P.(C) 2864/2025

¶20

Page 1 of 9

¶21

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 17/03/2025 at 11:21:47

¶22

e) Also pass any other further order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the present petition.”

¶23

The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the order dated 06 November 2023 passed by the respondents cancelling its Goods and Services Tax¹ registration with retrospective effect from 01 July 2022. The record would further reflect that the application for revocation of that order has also come to be dismissed in terms of the order dated 20 May 2024.

¶24

Mr. Jain, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, today restricts his challenge to the cancellation having been made effective from a retrospective date.

¶25

We note that the order of cancellation itself was preceded by the issuance of a Show Cause Notice² dated 21 June 2023, which baldly alleged that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Section 29(2)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017³ . This was followed by the passing of a final order dated 06 November 2023 which reads as follows:

¶26

¶27

lalit jain

¶28

VIRENDER NAGAR, VILLAGE BURARI, GROUND FLOOR, KH. NO 50/25, New Delhi, North East Delhi,Delhi,110084

¶29

GSTIN/ UIN :07BUJPJ9438D1ZF

¶30

Application Reference Number (ARN): AA0706230686416 Date

¶31

Order for Cancellation of Registration

¶32

1 GST

¶33

2 SCN

¶34

3 CGST Act

¶35

W.P.(C) 2864/2025 Page 2 of 9

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 17/03/2025 at 11:21:47

¶38

This has reference to show cause notice issued dated 21/06/2023.

¶39

The effective date of cancellation of your registration is 01/07/2022

¶40

It may be noted that a registered person furnishing return under sub-section (1) of section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017 is required to furnish a final return in FORM GSTR-10 within three months of the date of this order.

¶41

You are required to furnish all your pending returns.

¶42

It may be noted that the cancellation of registration shall not affect the liability to pay tax and other dues under this Act or to discharge any obligation under this Act or the rules made thereunder for any period prior to the date of cancellation whether or not such tax and other dues are determined before or after the date of cancellation.”

¶43

As is manifest from the above, the order of cancellation neither assigns nor records any reason in support of the ultimate decision to cancel the GST registration, which was held. The order also fails to record any reasons for the registration being liable to be cancelled with effect from 01 July 2022. This assumes added significance since the original SCN itself was not based on any material or evidence in support of the allegation that the original registration had been obtained by practice of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.

¶44

This order led to the petitioner being constrained to move an application for revocation. Even though that application was made on 30 November 2023, a SCN came to be issued on 08 May 2024, requiring the petitioner to explain why the said application should not be rejected. The reasons for that proposed action were, however, described to be the following:

¶45

“1 Reason for revocation of cancellation - Others (Please specify) Please provide the re-concilation between GSTR-3B & IM and

¶46

W.P.(C) 2864/2025 Page 3 of 9

¶47

This is a digitally signed order.

¶48

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 17/03/2025 at 11:21:47

¶49

GSTR-2A & 3B. Provide KYC documents, payment details for all pending dues and submit an undertaking to the effect that all the due returns shall be filed within 15 days of revocation. Compliance of Rule 86(b) of CGST Rule, 2017.”

¶50

7. This notice was ultimately finalised by the order of 20 May

¶51

2024 where it was observed as follows:

¶52

“You have not replied to the notice issued vide reference no. ZA070524041531V dated 08/05/2024 within the time specified therein. Therefore, your application is hereby rejected in accordance with the provisions of the Act.”

¶53

We are thus, of the firm opinion that the impugned orders are fully unreasoned and cannot be sustained.

¶54

In any event and in so far as the retrospective cancellation is concerned, we bear in mind the following observation as rendered Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (CGST), South Delhi & Anr.⁴ and where we have held as follows:

¶55

“ 5. As is manifest from a reading of Section 29, clauses (a) to (e) of Section 29(2) constitute independent limbs on the basis of which a registration may warrant cancellation. While the provision does enable the respondents to cancel that registration with retrospective effect, the mere existence or conferral of that power would not justify a revocation of registration. The order under Section 29(2) must itself reflect the reasons which may have weighed upon the respondents to cancel registration with retrospective effect. Given the deleterious consequences which would ensue and accompany a retroactive cancellation makes it all the more vital that the order be reasoned and demonstrative of due application of mind. It is also necessary to observe that the mere existence of such a power would not in itself be sufficient to sustain its invocation. What we seek to emphasise is that the power to cancel retrospectively can neither be robotic nor routinely applied unless circumstances so warrant. When tested on the aforesaid precepts it becomes ex facie evident that the impugned order of cancellation cannot be sustained.

¶56

6. We note that while dealing with the right of the respondents to cancel GST registration with retrospective effect and the manner in which such

¶57

4 W.P.C 8061/2024 dated 25 September 2024

¶58

W.P.(C) 2864/2025 Page 4 of 9

¶59

This is a digitally signed order.

¶60

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 17/03/2025 at 11:21:47

¶61

power should be exercised in accordance with the statutory scheme was an issue which was noticed in Ramesh Chander vs Assistant Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax, Dwarka Division, CGST Delhi & Anr.⁴ The Court in Ramesh Chander taking note of the contours of Section 29 had held:-

¶62

“1. The petitioner impugns order in appeal dated 29.12.2023, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. Petitioner had filed the appeal impugning order dated 13.07.2022 whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017. Petitioner also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 07.04.2022.

¶63

Vide impugned Show Cause Notice dated 07.04.2022, petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the registration be not cancelled for the following reasons:-

¶64

“Any Taxpayer other than composition taxpayer has not filed returns for a continuous period of six months”

¶65

Petitioner was in the business of services involving repair, alterations, additions, replacements, renovation, maintenance or remodelling of the building covered above, General construction services of harbours, waterways, dams, water mains and lines, irrigation and other waterworks, General construction services of long-distance underground/ overland/ submarine pipelines, communication and electric power lines (cables); pumping stations and related works; transformer stations and related works, General construction services of local water & sewage pipelines, electricity and communication cables & related works, Installation, assembly and erection services of other prefabricated structures and constructions and possessed a GST registration.

¶66

A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 07.04.2022 Though the notice does not specify any cogent reason, there is an observation in the notice stating failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. The show cause notice requires the petitioner to appear before the undersigned i.e. authority issuing the notice. Notice does not give the name of the officer or place or time where the petitioner has to appear.

¶67

Further the order dated 13.07.2022 passed on the show cause notice does not give any reasons for cancellation of the registration. It, however, states that the registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reason "whereas no reply to notice to show cause has been submitted''. However, the said order in itself is contradictory, the order states "reference to your reply dated 16.04.2022 in response to the notice to show

¶68

W.P.(C) 2864/2025 Page 5 of 9

¶69

This is a digitally signed order.

¶70

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 17/03/2025 at 11:21:47

¶71

cause dated 07.04.2022" and the reason stated for cancellation is "whereas no reply to notice to show cause has been submitted''. The order further states that effective date of cancellation of registration is 01.07.2017 i.e. retrospective date.

¶72

Neither the show cause notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation. In fact, in our view, order dated 13.07.2022 does not qualify as an order of cancellation of registration.

¶73

As per the petitioner, the said order reflected that the GST of the Petitioner stands cancelled from 01.07.2017 even though returns thereafter have been filed by the Petitioner.

¶74

We notice that the show cause notice as well as the impugned order of cancellation, are themselves vitiated on account of lack of reason and clarity. The appeal has been dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. Since the very foundation of entire proceedings i.e. show cause notice and the order of cancellation are vitiated, we are of the view that no purpose would be served in relegating the petitioner to the stage of an appeal.

¶75

In terms of Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. The registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria. Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer’s registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant.

¶76

It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a tax payer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the tax payer during such period. Although, we do not consider it apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention in this regard is correct, it would follow that the proper officer is also required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer’s registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.

¶77

W.P.(C) 2864/2025 Page 6 of 9

¶78

This is a digitally signed order.

¶79

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 17/03/2025 at 11:21:47

¶80

The show cause notice does not even state that the registration is liable to be cancelled from a retrospective date.

¶81

The petition is allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 07.04.2022, order of cancellation dated 13.07.2022 and the order in appeal dated 29.12.2023 are accordingly set aside. GST registration of the petitioner is restored, subject to petitioner filing requisite returns upto date.

¶82

It is clarified that since the petitioner could not have filed the return after the GST registration was suspended, there shall be no liability to pay any penalty or fine for delayed filing. However, this would only apply in case petitioner files an affidavit of undertaking that petitioner has not carried out any business or raised invoices or taken any Input Tax Credit after the registration was suspended with effect from 07.04.2022 i.e., the date of suspension of the registration.

¶83

Respondent would be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law after giving a proper show cause notice containing complete details, if so advised. Further this order would not preclude the respondent from initiating any steps in accordance with law, if it is found that the petitioner had violated any provisions of the Act.

¶84

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.”

¶85

We further take note of the judgment in Delhi Polymers vs Commissioner, Trade and Taxes & Anr.⁵ wherein the following was

¶86

observed:-

¶87

“1.Petitioner has filed the appeal impugning order of cancellation of registration dated 15.12.2021 whereby the GST registration of the Petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017. Petitioner also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2021.

¶88

Vide Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2021, petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the registration be not cancelled for the following reason:-

¶89

“Collects any amount representing the tax but fails to pay the same to the account of the Central/State Government beyond a period of three months from the date on which such payment becomes due”

¶90

Petitioner was engaged in the business of Sanitary ware Products & Accessories i.e., Baths, Shower, Washbasins, Seats and Cover etc. and possessed GST registration.

¶91

Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2021 was issued to the Petitioner seeking to cancel its registration. However, the Show Cause Notice also does not put the petitioner to notice that the registration is liable to be cancelled retrospectively.

¶92

W.P.(C) 2864/2025 Page 7 of 9

¶93

This is a digitally signed order.

¶94

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 17/03/2025 at 11:21:47

¶95

Accordingly, the petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration.

¶96

Further, the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 passed on the Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2021 does not give any reasons for cancellation. It, however, states that the registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reason “whereas no reply to the show cause notice has been submitted”. However, the said order in itself is contradictory. The order states “reference to your reply dated 15.12.2021 in response to the notice to show cause dated 04.09.2021” and the reason stated for the cancellation is “whereas no reply to notice show cause has been submitted”. The order further states that effective date of cancellation of registration is 01.07.2017 i.e., a retrospective date.

¶97

6. Neither the show cause notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation. In fact, in our view, order dated 15.12.2021 does not qualify as an order of cancellation of registration. On one hand, it states that the registration is liable to be cancelled and on the other, in the column at the bottom there are no dues stated to be due against the petitioner and the table shows nil demand.

¶98

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the said order reflected that the GST registration of petitioner stands cancelled from 01.07.2017 even though returns thereafter have been filed by the Petitioner.

¶99

He further submits that the petitioner is no longer interested in continuing the business and the business has been discontinued.

¶100

In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria. Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer’s registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant.

¶101

10. It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a tax payer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the tax payer during such period. Although, we do not consider it apposite to examine this aspect

¶102

W.P.(C) 2864/2025 Page 8 of 9

¶103

This is a digitally signed order.

¶104

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 17/03/2025 at 11:21:47

¶105

but assuming that the respondent’s contention in required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.

¶106

It may be further noted that both the Petitioners and the department want cancellation of the GST registration of the Petitioner, though for a different reason.

¶107

In view of the fact that Petitioner does not seek to carry on business or continue the registration, the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 is modified to the limited extent that registration shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from 04.09.2021 i.e., the date when the Show Cause Notice was issued.

¶108

It is clarified that Respondents are also not precluded from taking any steps for recovery of any tax, penalty or interest that may be due in respect of the subject firm in accordance with law.

¶109

Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.”

¶110

8. In view of the aforesaid and in light of an abject failure on the part of the authority to assign even rudimentary reasons for a retroactive cancellation, we find ourselves unable to sustain the order impugned.”

¶111

Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid reasons, we allow the instant writ petition and quash the order dated 20 May 2024. We modify the order dated 06 November 2023 and provide that the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration shall come into effect from the date of the SCN i.e. 21 June 2023.

¶112

The stipulation in the impugned order of cancellation to come into effect from 01 July 2022 is consequently quashed.

¶113

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶114

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

¶115

MARCH 06, 2025/v

¶116

W.P.(C) 2864/2025 Page 9 of 9

¶117

This is a digitally signed order.

¶118

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 17/03/2025 at 11:21:47

M/S Jain Metalloys v. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax North Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jain Metalloys v. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax North Delhi

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

Amar Singh Vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Kusum Healthcare Private Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13(1), New Delhi & Ors.

Aarone Developers Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1) New Delhi & Ors.

Dr. Jatinder Bali Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Deepshikha Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Goods and Service Tax Officer Ward - 92 & Anr.

Ganesh Trading Company Vs Superintendent Range 27 Central GST Division New Delhi & Anr.

Mr. Rohit Hans and Anr. Vs Directorate General of Civil Aviation and Anr.

Smita Jindal Vs Commissioner of Cental Goods and Service Tax (Cgst), Delhi West

Devender Singh Vs Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Delhi West Commissionerate

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Mr D K Singh, Official Liquidator

Umang Bajaj & Ors. Vs Raghbir Singh Chhabra & Ors.

Harish Chandra Agrawal Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28, Delhi

Saraswati Sewa Kunj Educational Trust Vs M/S Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd.

Color Fabrics through Its Proprietor Mr. Sahil Mahajan Vs Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others