01.10.2026 Item No.1 Ct. No. 10 BR WPA 22119 of 2026 Vijendra Singh -vs- Superintendent Range IV Bally II Division Howrah Commissioner and another Mr. Vinay Kumar Shraff, Mr. Dev Kumar Agarwal … for the petitioner Mr.Uday Shankar Bhattacharyya, Ms. Sretapa Sinha … for the respondent 1. The petitioner challenged the Order dated 27.07.2026 whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled with retrospective effect from 16.07.2026 and the Order dated 16.06.2025, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 2. Main grievances of the petitioner are as follows:- i) The registration of the petitioner has been cancelled only on the ground of lack of ownership of the property of the petitioner which is wholly without jurisdiction. ii) Neither Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 nor Rule 21 of the CGST Rules, 2017 mandates cancellation of registration for want of exclusive ownership. The petitioner has produced “No Objection Certificate” from all owners and continue to carry on bonafide manufacturing activities from the premises in question. 2 iii) The impugned order suffers from illegality and irregularity and has been passed in excess of jurisdiction, arbitrarily and is liable to be set aside. 3. It is further contended that despite filing a detailed reply dated 23.07.2026 to the Show Cause Notice, which is annexed as Annexure „P21‟ at page 106 of the Writ Petition and duly acknowledged by the GST Authorities, the respondent No. 1 has erroneously recorded in the impugned order that no reply has been filed. 4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the GST Authorities vehemently opposes the submissions made by the petitioner and submits that at thetime of personal hearing the petitioner failed to produce relevant documents pertaining to the property in question. 5. A Civil Suit has been filed by the petitioner against the co-owners of the property in question. 6. Heard the Learned Advocates for the respective parties and upon perusing the materials available on record, this Court has taken the judicial notice of the reply dated 23rd July 2026 being Annexure „P21‟ at page 106 of the Writ Petition. This Court finds that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case warranting interference at this stage. This Court is of the considered view that the Show Cause Notice and also the Order of 3 Cancellation of registration have been passed in a very mechanical manner and without proper application of mind and without considering the reply filed by the petitioner and thus warrants to be set aside on this score alone. 7. In view of the above the impugned order dated 27.07.2026 cancelling the registration of the petitioner with effect from 16.07.2026 and consequently the Order dated 16.06.2026 are hereby quashed and set aside. 8. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 1 for fresh consideration. The respondent No. 1 is directed to reconsider the reply dated 23rd July 2026 afresh (Annexure P21 at page 106) and pass a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this Order and an adequate opportunity of personal hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner. The decision so arrive at shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter. 9. The respondent No. 1 shall arrive at a logical and conclusive finding regarding restoration of the registration of the petitioner. 10. The respondent No. 1 shall take an independent decision strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove. The petitioner shall not seek any 4 further unnecessary adjournment and shall furnish his Email ID in advance to the respondent No. 1 for service of notice of hearing. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 shall fix the date and time of hearing after serving notice through such email. 11. If satisfied with regard to the credentials and genuineness of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 shall activate the Portal and Log In credentials of the petitioner within a week from the date of final decision to enable the petitioner to file returns and make the payment of requisite amount in accordance with law. 12. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the above direction, the benefit of this order shall not enure to the petitioner. 13. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of without going into the merits of the case. (Smita Das De, J.)