CWP-39022-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Maa Luxmi Enterprises Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax and another CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kalra, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent(s) (appeared through VC) Mr. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent DEEPAK SIBAL Through a show cause notice dated was put to notice as to why its GST registration be not cancelled to written response was filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, through order dated 07.06.2024, the petitioner’s GST registration was retrospectively cancelled with effect from Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, read with the relevant Rules, for revocation of cancellation of its GST same was rejected on appeal which was also dismissed on 08.04.2025. 2. Retrospective cancellation of th rejection of its revocation application and the order of the appellate authority dated 08.04.2025 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.341 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-39022 Date of Decision : Maa Luxmi Enterprises Versus Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Mukul Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kalra, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent(s)-CBIC (appeared through VC) Mr. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel or the respondent-UOI. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) Through a show cause notice dated put to notice as to why its GST registration be not cancelled to written response was filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, through order dated , the petitioner’s GST registration was retrospectively cancelled with effect from 11.07.2023. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, read with the relevant Rules, for revocation of cancellation of its GST same was rejected on 01.07.2024 against which the petitio appeal which was also dismissed on 08.04.2025. Retrospective cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration; rejection of its revocation application and the order of the appellate authority dated 08.04.2025, dismissing the petitioner’s IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 39022-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.05.2026 …Petitioner Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax and another …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Ajay Kalra, Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel Through a show cause notice dated 01.02.2024, the petitioner put to notice as to why its GST registration be not cancelled to which a written response was filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, through order dated , the petitioner’s GST registration was retrospectively cancelled The petitioner then filed an application under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, read with the relevant Rules, for revocation of cancellation of its GST registration but the against which the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 08.04.2025. e petitioner’s GST registration; rejection of its revocation application and the order of the appellate dismissing the petitioner’s appeal, filed against VANDANA 2026.05.19 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-39022-2025 the aforesaid orders, are the subject matter of challenge through this petition. 3. A perusal of the show cause notice dated that though the show cause notice were attached. notice that its GST registration was sought to be cancelled retrospectively. 4. In the above factual position, the petitioner’s case is fully covered in its favour by a recent judgment of this Court dated 20.02.2026 in CWP No.16770 wherein it has been held as follows “13. Und 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 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. Furtherm 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 Suprem Court in ORYX Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, 2010(13) SCC 427, has held as under: 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 2025 (O&M) the aforesaid orders, are the subject matter of challenge through this A perusal of the show cause notice dated that though the show cause notice refers to supporting documents but none were attached. Such show cause notice also did not put t GST registration was sought to be cancelled retrospectively. In the above factual position, the petitioner’s case is fully covered in its favour by a recent judgment of this Court dated 20.02.2026 in CWP No.16770-2024- ‘M/s Bansal Casting vs. Union of India and anothe wherein it has been held as follows:- “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 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. Furtherm 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 Suprem 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 person proceeded against a reasonable 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 the aforesaid orders, are the subject matter of challenge through this A perusal of the show cause notice dated 01.02.2024 reveals refers to supporting documents but none Such show cause notice also did not put the petitioner to GST registration was sought to be cancelled retrospectively. In the above factual position, the petitioner’s case is fully covered in its favour by a recent judgment of this Court dated 20.02.2026 in M/s Bansal Casting vs. Union of India and another’ oubtedly, 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. 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 d while initiating a show cause proceeding. A show cause proceeding is meant to give the 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 VANDANA 2026.05.19 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-39022-2025 documents are attached, such material should have been supplied to petitioners. 5. Learned distinguish the applicability of the judgment in (supra) to the petitioner’s case. 6. In light of the above, we have no hesitation in setting aside the show cause notice dated 07.06.2024 (Annexure P has been retrospectively cancelled; the order da rejecting the petitioner’s revocation application and the appellate order dated 08.04.2025 (Annexure P proceed afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law. 7. The May 12, 2026 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) documents are attached, such material should have been supplied to petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to distinguish the applicability of the judgment in to the petitioner’s case. In light of the above, we have no hesitation in setting aside the show cause notice dated 01.02.2024 (Annexure P 07.06.2024 (Annexure P-3) through which the petitioner’s GST registration has been retrospectively cancelled; the order dated rejecting the petitioner’s revocation application and the appellate order dated (Annexure P-9). However, the respondents are granted liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law. The petition is allowed in the above terms. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE , 2026 ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No documents are attached, such material should have been (emphasis supplied) counsel for the respondents has not been able to distinguish the applicability of the judgment in M/s Bansal Casting’s case In light of the above, we have no hesitation in setting aside the 01.02.2024 (Annexure P-1); the order dated through which the petitioner’s GST registration ted 01.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) rejecting the petitioner’s revocation application and the appellate order dated . However, the respondents are granted liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law. petition is allowed in the above terms. DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2026.05.19 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document