IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT M/s V.V. Enterprises Union of India and others CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. for the respondents. DEEPAK SIBAL It is not disputed that the evidence relied upon by the respondents to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration was not supplied to the petitioner before passing of the impugned cancellation order dated 19.02.2026. 2. In light of the above, the petitione favour by the following observations in Bench of this Court dated Bansal Casting vs. Union of India and another “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 Sr. No.125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP- 17219 Date of Decision : M/s V.V. Enterprises Versus Union of India and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Umesh Sarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) It is not disputed that the evidence relied upon by the respondents to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration was not supplied to the petitioner before passing of the impugned cancellation order dated In light of the above, the petitione the following observations in a recent Bench of this Court dated 20.02.2026 in CWP No.16770 of 2024 Bansal Casting vs. Union of India and another “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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 17219-2026 Date of Decision : 27.05.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel It is not disputed that the evidence relied upon by the respondents to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration was not supplied to the petitioner before passing of the impugned cancellation order dated In light of the above, the petitioner’s case is covered in its a recent judgment of a Division CWP No.16770 of 2024 – M/s Bansal Casting vs. Union of India and another:- “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 PRINCE SAINI 2026.05.28 11:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP- 17219- 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: 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 retrospective effect and su 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. 3. In (Annexure P-9 retrospectively respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in 4. The petition is allowed in the above terms. 27.05.2026 Prince Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable -2026 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 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 noti 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 su 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 view of the above, the impugned order dated 9), through which the petitioner’s retrospectively cancelled, is quashed. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in The petition is allowed in the above terms. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No -2- 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 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 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 (emphasis supplied) of the above, the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 through which the petitioner’s GST registration has been is quashed. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law. The petition is allowed in the above terms. DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE PRINCE SAINI 2026.05.28 11:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document