CWP- 1634-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT MD Industries Union of India CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. for the petitioner. Ms. Sidhi Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents. DEEPAK SIBAL Through 6), the petitioner cancelled to Thereafter, through order dated GST registration was retrospectively cancelled with effect from The retrospective c subject matter of challenge through this petition. 2. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 3. A perusal of the show cause notice dated that the petitioner intended to cancel its GST registration with retrospective effect whi done through order dated 18.11.2025. fully covered 2026 (O&M) Sr. No.274 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP- 1634 Date of Decision : MD Industries Versus Union of India and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Akhil Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sidhi Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents. *** SIBAL, J. (Oral) Through a show cause notice dated , the petitioner was put to notice as to why its which no written response was Thereafter, through order dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P GST registration was retrospectively cancelled with effect from trospective cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration subject matter of challenge through this petition. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. A perusal of the show cause notice dated the petitioner was not put to notice that the respondent authorities intended to cancel its GST registration with retrospective effect whi through order dated 18.11.2025. That being so, the petitioner’s case is fully covered in its favour by a recent judgment of this Court dated IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1634-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.04.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P- was put to notice as to why its GST registration be not was filed by the petitioner. 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner’s GST registration was retrospectively cancelled with effect from 01.07.2017. petitioner’s GST registration is the subject matter of challenge through this petition. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 27.09.2024 reveals was not put to notice that the respondent authorities intended to cancel its GST registration with retrospective effect which was hat being so, the petitioner’s case is in its favour by a recent judgment of this Court dated VANDANA 2026.05.05 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP- 1634-2026 20.02.2026 in CWP No.16770 India and anothe “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 wit 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 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 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. 4. Learned distinguish the applicability of the (supra) to the petitioner’s case. 5. In light of the above 27.09.2024 (Annexure P through which the petitioner’s GST registration has been 2026 (O&M) 20.02.2026 in CWP No.16770-2024- ‘M/s Bansal Casting vs. Union of India and another’ 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 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 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 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, the impugned 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) and the order dated through which the petitioner’s GST registration has been M/s Bansal Casting vs. Union of 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 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 h 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 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 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.” 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 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 (emphasis supplied) counsel for the respondents has not been able to judgment in M/s Bansal Casting’s case impugned show cause notice dated ted 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-7) through which the petitioner’s GST registration has been retrospectively VANDANA 2026.05.05 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP- 1634-2026 cancelled are set aside. proceed afresh 6. The petition is allowed in the above terms. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. April 30, 2026 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable 2026 (O&M) cancelled are set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents against the petitioner, in accordance with law. The petition is allowed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE , 2026 ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No liberty is granted to the respondents to , in accordance with law. The petition is allowed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2026.05.05 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document