CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

GST Registration Cannot Be Cancelled Retrospectively Without Objective Criteria:  Delhi High Court

08 January 2025 8:13 PM

By: sayum


In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court addressed the retrospective cancellation of GST registration for Kalpatru Industries, emphasizing the necessity for clear and objective criteria when making such decisions. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja, critiqued the procedural deficiencies in the notices issued by the tax authorities and modified the cancellation date to align with the application submitted by the petitioner.

Kalpatru Industries, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), held GST registration number 07AAEHK4901N1Z3 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. On May 6, 2019, the petitioner sought the cancellation of their GST registration due to the closure of business operations. However, the application was rejected on June 5, 2020, without specific reasons. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued on January 13, 2021, and the GST registration was cancelled retroactively to July 1, 2017, via an order dated January 27, 2021. Kalpatru Industries challenged this decision, leading to the present judgment.

The court noted significant flaws in both the Show Cause Notice and the cancellation order. The Show Cause Notice failed to provide specific reasons for the proposed cancellation, merely stating the taxpayer had not filed returns for a continuous period of six months without specifying the date and time for a personal hearing​​. Furthermore, the cancellation order contradicted itself by acknowledging a reply from the petitioner but also citing the absence of a reply as the reason for cancellation​​.

The bench emphasized that retrospective cancellation of GST registration should not be mechanical. As per Section 29(2) of the Act, such actions must be based on objective criteria and not subjective opinions. The court remarked, "Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria"​​.

The court underscored that retrospective cancellation has significant consequences, including the denial of input tax credit to the taxpayer's customers for the relevant period. Therefore, it should only be employed when such outcomes are warranted and intended. The judgment stated, "A taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted"​​.

Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed, "Neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation. Accordingly, the same cannot be sustained"​​. The judgment further highlighted that any cancellation with retrospective effect must be objectively justified, aligning with the principles of fairness and transparency in tax administration.

The Delhi High Court modified the impugned order to reflect the cancellation of GST registration from May 6, 2019, the date when the application for cancellation was initially filed by Kalpatru Industries. This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring procedural fairness and the necessity for objective criteria in tax administration. The court also clarified that tax authorities are not precluded from pursuing any dues from the petitioner following due process, including providing proper notice and a personal hearing.

Date of Decision: May 27, 2024

Latest Legal News