134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15885-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16th July, 2026. HARISH BHOLA .…...Petitioner(s) V/s STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ......Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present Mr. Mukesh Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against order dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P-3), cancelling the petitioner’s registration with retrospective effect from 01.04.2024. 2. The primary ground on which the impugned order is assailed is that the show cause notice dated 05.11.2024 (Annexure P- 2), issued to the petitioner, does not indicate that cancellation of his registration can be from a date prior to issuance of the show cause notice and therefore, cancellation of petitioner’s registration with retrospective effect would be unsustainable in law. 3. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court in M/s Bansal Casting, S.K. Enterprises Vs. Union of India SURESH KUMAR 2026.07.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15885-2026 (O&M) and Another and M/s Shree Ram Industries V/s State of Haryana and Another; 2026:PHHC:027747-DB. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the show cause notice dated 05.11.2024 records a failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months on part of the petitioner. According to him, the system-generated notice merely communicates these factual defaults to the petitioner, and the cancellation of registration has been effected from the date on which the default itself has occurred. 5. Be that as it may, we find that in the notice, there is no recital that the cancellation would take place from a date prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. The mere fact that the alleged violation predates the issuance of notice, would not mean that sufficient notice is furnished to the person concerned informing him of the retrospectivity being applied in the matter of cancellation of registration. 6. So far as the system generated notice is concerned, unless there is a recital with regard to retrospective cancellation of registration, the order itself cannot be sustained only because it is backed by “system generated notice”. The requirement in law has to be subserved. The authorities are required to make necessary corrections in the system-generated notice, and the impugned order cannot be treated as valid merely because the authorities failed to indicate that the cancellation of registration was being effected retrospectively. SURESH KUMAR 2026.07.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15885-2026 (O&M) 7. In view of the aforesaid, the Writ Petition succeeds and is allowed in terms of the law laid down in M/s Bansal Casting, S.K. Enterprises (Supra). However, liberty stands reserved to the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice and proceed further in accordance with law. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. [ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE [ROHIT KAPOOR] JUDGE July 16, 2026 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No Whether Reportable : Yes / No SURESH KUMAR 2026.07.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document