CWP- 12339- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT M/s Bharat Steels through its State of Punjab CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Pandher, Additional A.G., DEEPAK SIBAL Through was put to notice as to why his GST registration be not cancelled. Thereafter, through order dated 02.09.2024, the petitioner’s GST registration was retrospectively cancelled with effect from 31.03.2022. petitioner then and Services T cancellation of against which the petitioner filed an appeal w 14.08.2025. 2. Cancellation of its revocation application 14.08.2025 dismissing the petitioner’s appeal orders, are the 3. Learned counsel for the of the order dated 02.09.2024 registration was -2026 (O&M) Sr. No.154 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP- 12339 Date of Decision : M/s Bharat Steels through its Proprietor Versus State of Punjab and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. J.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Pandher, Additional A.G., *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) Through a show cause notice dated 12.07.2024, the petitioner was put to notice as to why his GST registration be not cancelled. Thereafter, through order dated 02.09.2024, the petitioner’s GST registration was retrospectively cancelled with effect from 31.03.2022. then filed an application, under Section 30 of the C Tax Act 2017, read with the relevant Rules cancellation of its registration but the same was rejected on 16.10.2024 against which the petitioner filed an appeal w Cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration, its revocation application and the order of the dismissing the petitioner’s appeal the subject matter of challenge through Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing of the order dated 02.09.2024, through which registration was retrospectively cancelled, no specific notice in this regard IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 12339-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.04.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. R.S.Pandher, Additional A.G., Punjab. dated 12.07.2024, the petitioner was put to notice as to why his GST registration be not cancelled. Thereafter, through order dated 02.09.2024, the petitioner’s GST registration was retrospectively cancelled with effect from 31.03.2022. The der Section 30 of the Central Goods e relevant Rules, for revocation of me was rejected on 16.10.2024 against which the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed on petitioner’s GST registration, rejection of of the appellate authority dated dismissing the petitioner’s appeal filed against the aforesaid through this petition. petitioner submits that before passing through which the petitioner’s GST no specific notice in this regard VANDANA 2026.05.01 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP- 12339- was served upon the petitioner support of its submissions l on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 20.02.2026 in No.16770 of 2024 4. Learned State counsel fairly admits that before the petitioner’s GST registration regard was served upon the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 6. Once it is admitted upon the petitioner cancelled, the order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration retrospectively of the principles of natural justice. 7. Our view, as above, is supported by the made by a Division Bench of this Court in (Supra):- “13. Undoubtedly, there is a provision for retrospective cancellation of registration in terms of Section 29 of CGST Act, subject to the provisions as contained therein. It is apposite to note that while such power of retrospective cancellation of registra apparent that such action can be taken only upon existence of specific contingencies and that an order under Section 29(2) of CGST Act must definitely reflect the reasons for such cancellation with retrospective effect. basic, accepted and settled principle that concerned authority is enjoined upon to put the assessee to notice of the action which is intended to be taken and reasons or the premise on which such action is sought to be taken. Hon'ble th Court in ORYX Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, 2010(13) SCC 427, has held as under: -2026 (O&M) served upon the petitioner rendering the cancellation order illegal support of its submissions learned counsel for the petitioner on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 20.02.2026 in No.16770 of 2024 – ‘M/s Bansal Casting vs. Union of India and anothe Learned State counsel fairly admits that before the petitioner’s GST registration was retrospectively cancelled, no specific notice in this regard was served upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Once it is admitted that no specific upon the petitioner that its GST registration is sought to be retrospectively the order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration , would be unsustainable in law as the same would b of the principles of natural justice. Our view, as above, is supported by the Division Bench of this Court in “13. Undoubtedly, there is a provision for retrospective cancellation of registration in terms of Section 29 of CGST Act, subject to the provisions as contained therein. It is apposite to note that while such power of retrospective cancellation of registration is definitely conferred, it is apparent that such action can be taken only upon existence of specific contingencies and that an order under Section 29(2) of CGST Act must definitely reflect the reasons for such cancellation with retrospective effect. basic, accepted and settled principle that concerned authority is enjoined upon to put the assessee to notice of the action which is intended to be taken and reasons or the premise on which such action is sought to be taken. Hon'ble th Court in ORYX Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, 2010(13) SCC 427, has held as under: "24. It is well settled that a quasi authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating a show cause proceeding. A show cause proceeding is meant to give the rendering the cancellation order illegal. In earned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 20.02.2026 in CWP M/s Bansal Casting vs. Union of India and another’. Learned State counsel fairly admits that before the petitioner’s cancelled, no specific notice in this Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. specific show cause notice was served that its GST registration is sought to be retrospectively the order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration ainable in law as the same would be violative Our view, as above, is supported by the following observations Division Bench of this Court in M/s Bansal Casting’s case “13. Undoubtedly, there is a provision for retrospective cancellation of registration in terms of Section 29 of CGST Act, subject to the provisions as contained therein. It is apposite to note that while such power of retrospective tion is definitely conferred, it is apparent that such action can be taken only upon existence of specific contingencies and that an order under Section 29(2) of CGST Act must definitely reflect the reasons for such cancellation with retrospective effect. Furthermore, it is a basic, accepted and settled principle that concerned authority is enjoined upon to put the assessee to notice of the action which is intended to be taken and reasons or the premise on which such action is sought to be taken. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in ORYX Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, 2010(13) SCC 427, has held as under:- "24. It is well settled that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating a show cause proceeding. A show cause proceeding is meant to give the VANDANA 2026.05.01 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP- 12339- 14. grounds or premises on which action is sought to be taken. In the present matters, it was incumbent upon authorities to have put petitioners to notice about the proposal to take action against them with retro mention the material on which reliance was placed. Moreover, once mentioned in show cause notice itself, that supporting documents are attached, such material should have been supplied to petitioners. 8. In light of the afore facts and petition is allowed resulting dated 12.07.2024; GST registration has been retrospectively cancelled 16.10.2024, rejecting the appellate order respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law. April 23, 2026 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable -2026 (O&M) person proceeded opportunity of making his objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice. 14. Thus a show cause notice must contain the basic grounds or premises on which action is sought to be taken. In the present matters, it was incumbent upon authorities to have put petitioners to notice about the proposal to take action against them with retrospective effect and supply or at least mention the material on which reliance was placed. Moreover, once mentioned in show cause notice itself, that supporting documents are attached, such material should have been supplied to petitioners. In light of the afore facts and the position of petition is allowed resulting in the setting aside of the show cause notice .07.2024; the order dated 02.09.2024 through which the petitioner’s GST registration has been retrospectively cancelled rejecting the petitioner’s revocation application appellate order dated 14.08.2025. However, respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE , 2026 ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of making his objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice.” Thus a show cause notice must contain the basic grounds or premises on which action is sought to be taken. In the present matters, it was incumbent upon authorities to have put petitioners to notice about the proposal to take action spective effect and supply or at least mention the material on which reliance was placed. Moreover, once mentioned in show cause notice itself, that supporting documents are attached, such material should have been (emphasis supplied) the position of law, the present the setting aside of the show cause notice the order dated 02.09.2024 through which the petitioner’s GST registration has been retrospectively cancelled; the order dated revocation application and the . However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law. DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2026.05.01 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document