Serial No. 1 Regular Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 25/2025 CM 56/2025 M/S New King Plus Industries … Appellant(s) Through: Mr. M.A. Wani, Advocate with Mr. Malik Faraz, Advocate Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA with Mr. Mohd Younis Hafiz, Assisting Counsel Ms. Rahella Khan, Assisting Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE ORDER 07.02.2025 01. Impugned in this petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge an order bearing No. 2039-43/GS-17/DCST/APPLI/K dated 29th November, 2024 and order dated 17th November, 2023, passed by the respondent No. 3, including a show cause notice dated 7th June, 2023, issued by the respondent No. 3. 02. The impugned orders are challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the impugned show cause notice dated 07.06.2023 issued by the respondent No. 3 only quotes Rule 21(b) of CGST Rules, 2017, and does not provide any material particulars of the violations so as to enable the petitioner to respond. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the notice of show cause was lacking material particulars, yet the petitioner in its own wisdom submitted the reply indicating therein that it had made all the payments through Bank Account No. CC-559 with Jammu and Kashmir Bank. 03. The respondent No. 3 without considering the reply filed in the show cause notice passed the impugned order of cancellation dated 7th June, 2023, without disclosing any reasons. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which came to be dismissed vide order dated 29th November, 2024. 04. The respondents have filed their objections. In the objections it is the plea taken by the respondents that the petitioner was aware of the details of the violations as the same were clearly reflected in the demand notice which was served upon the petitioner online. It is submitted by Mr. Ilyas Laway, learned GA appearing on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner never objected to the show cause notice nor did he ask for any further details and material, and, therefore, cannot be permitted to say that he has been prejudiced by the so-called cryptic show cause notice. 05. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the entire proceedings taken pursuant to the impugned show cause notice are not sustainable. Once the show cause notice has been issued to the dealer soliciting his response to the violations detected, it is incumbent upon the authorities to indicate the details or material particulars of such violations. Mere mention of the provision of law which as per the Assessing Authority stands violated, is not enough. Even if we were to agree that the relevant material stood supplied to the petitioner in a demand notice, nothing prevented the Assessing Authority to at least indicate in the show cause notice that the details had already been provided to the petitioner in the demand notice or append a copy of the demand notice along with the show cause notice. This obviously has not been done in the instant case. 06. That apart, once the petitioner responded to the show cause notice and brought it to the notice of the Assessing Authority that he had not committed any violations and had made all invoices through bank transactions, the least that was required to be done by the Assessing Authority was to consider and dispose of that explanation by giving reasons. It was up to the Assessing Authority to accept or reject the explanation, however, for not accepting the explanation, it was incumbent upon the respondent No. 3 to give reasons though brief. 07. In the instant case, this too has not happened. The Assessing Authority has by a single line cancelled the registration by merely saying that it has examined the reply to the show cause notice without even showing further whether on examination the Authority has found the reply satisfactory or not. Such cryptic order cannot take away the registration of the petitioner. The Appellate Authority which was approached by the petitioner has not appreciated all these aspects of the case. The Appellate Authority should have been well advised to remand the case back to the respondent No. 3 to take corrective measures and follow the law. 08. Be that as it may, for the foregoing reasons, we find merit in this petition and the order bearing No. 2039-43/GST-17/DCST/APPLI/K dated 29th November, 2024, passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside. Consequently the orders of cancellation of registration dated 17th November, 2024 and show cause notice dated 7th June, 2023, are quashed. We, however, make it clear that the quashing of the impugned orders shall not come in the way of the Assessing Authority to issue a fresh notice and proceed in the matter in accordance with law. The plea of delay in issuing such notice shall not be available to the petitioner. 09. Disposed of. (PUNEET GUPTA) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 07.02.2025 “Mir Arif” MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 10.02.25