The Court held that an order cancelling registration from 2017 travelled beyond a notice that never proposed retrospective effect, especially where the same period had earlier been cleared on revocation.
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order cancelling a textile trader’s GST registration with effect from 02.07.2017, holding that the order went beyond the scope of the show cause notice, which made no reference to retrospective cancellation [Paresh Textiles, Prop. Paresh Gudhka v. Superintendent, Range IV, Division V & Ors.].
The bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil noted that the registration had been cancelled retrospectively once before, in 2023, and then restored after the department accepted the petitioner’s explanation that the premises had been taken over by the lender bank following Covid-era losses. A second notice in July 2024 alleged under Rule 21(a) that the taxpayer was a “fake firm”, and the registration was again cancelled from 2017.
The Court also noted that in parallel Section 122 penalty proceedings, the Joint Commissioner had found the ITC availed by the petitioner to be genuine and in line with Section 16, indicating that this may not be a case of a fake supplier.
While noting that the petitioner had not replied to the notice, the Court quashed the cancellation order, revived the registration and directed fresh adjudication after the petitioner appears with a reply on 26.10.2026. The relief was made subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 25,000 to the Department of Surgery and Radiology, Mumbai Veterinary College, within two weeks.
2026-juristway.com-3104-HC(Bombay)-GST
