Akash Bansal (Proprietor M/S Shri Prem Ji Traders) v. Superintendent Range - 109 Central Goods and Services Tax Department, Delhi West, Division- Rohini

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."

¶7We further take note of the judgment in Delhi Polymers vs Commissioner, Trade and Taxes & Anr. wherein the following was observed :- "1-3…..

¶4Show 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 is liable to be cancelled retrospectively. Accordingly, the petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration.

¶5Further, the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 passed on Show Cause Notice dated

04.09.2021 does not give any reasons for cancellation. It, however, states 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.

¶6Neither the show cause notice, nor the order spell out reasons for 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.

¶7Learned 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.

¶8He further submits that the petitioner is no longer interested in continuing the business and the business has been discontinued.

¶9In 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 is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant.

¶10It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of consequences for cancelling a tax payer's registration with effect is 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 required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST effect. Thus, a taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted."

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

¶11Thus in view of the settled legal position captured above, the cancellation of Petitioner's GST Registration is, accordingly, directed to be effective from the date of issuance of the SCN i.e., 6th August 2024. The Department is, however, free to proceed in accordance with law qua the Petitioner in case, it still intends to direct retrospective cancellation.

¶12The Petitioner shall furnish the following details to the Department as sought vide SCN dated 14th May, 2024: i. Basic Details i. Others (Please specify) ii. Pan and Aadhaar card of all the Proprietor/Partners/Directors/CEO etc. iii. Complete future permanent address with gali/mohalla/street no etc with copy of the proof. ii. Cancellation Details i. Others (Please specify) ii. All the pending returns along with applicable interest and late fee. iii. reconciliation sheet for applicable returns GSTR1 & 3B AND GSTR 2A & 3B year wise, GSTR-6 in case of ISD or any other applicable return and discharge the outstanding tax liability, reverse the excess ITC availed/utilized with interest and penalty/ late fee, if any, along with upload of documentary proof of tax deposit like challan/drc-03/ledger etc.

¶13The above information shall be furnished by the Petitioner within two months failing which, the Department is free to take action in accordance with law.

¶14The contact details of the Petitioner for future purposes is as under: Name: Akash Bansal Address: A-1/251, Sector-4, Rohini, Rohini Sector-7, North West Delhi, Delhi-110085 Mobile No.: 9311381441 Email: bansalumeshb20@gmail.com PAN Card No.: CEFPB4719A

¶15The present writ petition along with pending application is disposed of in the above terms. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 13, 2025 kk/msh

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 13th August, 2025 + AKASH BANSAL (PROPRIETOR M/S SHRI PREM JI TRADERS) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin Gulati & Ms. Reena Gandhi, Advs. (9313133000) versus SUPERINTENDENT RANGE - 109 CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI WEST, DIVISION- ROHINI .....Respondent Through: Mr Aakarsh Srivastava, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Anand Pandey, Adv. (9871094948) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. This is a petition challenging the order dated 19th August, 2024 cancelling the GST registration of the Petitioner. The grievance of the Petitioner is that it has been cancelled with retrospective effect from 8th October, 2019. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the reason given is non- compliance of Rule 10A of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017. The said provision reads as under: "Rule 10A. Furnishing of Bank Account Details. - After a certificate of registration in FORM GST REG- 06 has been made available on the common portal and a Goods and Services Tax Identification Number has been assigned, the registered person, except those who have been granted registration under Rule 12 or, as the case may be Rule 16, shall within a period of thirty days from the date of grant of registration, or before furnishing the details of outward supplies of goods or services or both under section 37 in FORM GSTR-1or using invoice furnishing facility, whichever is earlier, furnish information with respect to details of bank account on the common portal." 4. As per the said provision, the bank details have to be furnished within 30 days from the date of GST registration and the Petitioner had received its GST registration on 8th October, 2019 with registration No. 07CEFPB4719A1Z3. Thus, it is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that in 2024 the Department could not have raised the said objection, belatedly after five years. 5. Ld. SSC for the Department, on the other hand, submits that the Show Cause Notice dated 6th August, 2024 (hereinafter, 'SCN') was the third SCN issued to the Petitioner in respect of cancellation of the GST Registration. The earlier two SCNs dated 20th December, 2023 and 14th May 2024 were not replied to by the Petitioner. Even the SCN dated 6th August, 2024 has not been replied to and therefore, the retrospective cancellation order has been passed. 6. On a specific query, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no notice issued to the Petitioner or any of its customers/ purchaser in respect of fraudulent availment or passing of Input Tax Credit. 7. The Court has heard the parties and perused the documents placed on records. The settled legal position is that if the SCN does not contemplate retrospective cancellation, the order cannot be passed directing retrospective cancellation. 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)'. 8. The relevant portions of the decision in Subhana Fashion (supra) is as under: "10. It is apparent to note that non-payment of dues for a period of three months is not a prescribed ground for cancelling petitioner's GST registration. 11. It is also important to note that the impugned order sets out a tabular statement, which indicates that no amount has been determined as payable by the petitioner. The Central Tax, State Tax, Integrated Tax and Cess payable by the petitioner is reflected as, "0.0". 12. Apart from the above, the impugned order has also been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Although the SCN called upon the peti