[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The Union Of India And Ors on 11 December, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010183702025
2025:GAU-AS:17267
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4700/2025
PRITAM SOVASARIA
SON OF LATE RADHESHYAM SOVASARIA SUBHAM ELITE FLAT NO 4E
BLOCK A2 SILPUKHURI GUWAHATI
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF
FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ROOM NO 66 A NORTH BLOCK NEW
DELHI
2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE
TAX
GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD GUWAHATI ASSAM
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT
I B RANGE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX INTELLIGENCE GST BHAWAN
KEDAR ROAD GUWAHATI ASSAM
4:THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
INTELLIGENCE GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT HOUSE NO 77 PANJABARI ROAD
GUWAHATI
5:THE STATE WEST BENGAL
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTORATE OF COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFIE OF THE
SPECIAL COMMISSIONER BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION NORTH BENGAL
HEADQUARTER 10 MADAN STREET ESPLANADE CHANDNI CHOWK BOW
BAZAR KOLKATA
6:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
GOVT OF WEST BENGAL OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER BOI
NORTH BENGAL HQ COMMERCIAL TAX BUILDING PARIBAHAN NAGAR
MATIGARA SILIGURI
Page No.# 2/6
7:THE PROPER OFFICER STATE GST
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
NORTH BENGAL CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING HAREN MUKHERJEE
ROAD HAKIMPARA SILIGURI WEST BENGA
BEFORE
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Advocate for the petitioner : Shri A. Goyal, Advocate.
Advocates for the respondents : Shri S. K. Medhi, CGC,
Ms. M. Das, Advocate, R-1
Shri S. Chetia, Sr. SC, CGST, R-2 & 3
Shri S. C. Keyal, Senior SC,
Ms. S. P. Upadhyay, Advocate, R-4,
Shri B. Gogoi, Advocate, R-5, 6 & 7
Date on which judgment is reserved : NA
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 11.12.2025
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative part of the judgment? : NA
Whether the full judgment
has been pronounced? : Yes
Judgment & Order
Heard Shri A. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M.
Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri S. K. Medhi, learned CGC
appearing for the respondent no. 1; Shri S. Chetia, learned Senior Standing
Counsel, CGST appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 3; Ms. S. P. Upadhyay,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri S. C. Keyal, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Shri B. Gogoi, learned Counsel for the
Page No.# 3/6
respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7.
2. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and as agreed to by
the learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for disposal at the
admission stage.
3. The petitioner has put to challenge a Show-Cause Notice dated 10.07.2025
issued by the Superintendent, I-B Range Guwahati Zonal Unit as to why his
GST Registration should not be cancelled. The challenge is also against an
order dated 30.07.2025 which was passed during the pendency of the first writ
petition whereby the GST registration was cancelled.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily contended that such
cancellation has been done with retrospective effect and the same was not
indicated in the Show Cause Notice. He has also contended that the notice was
cryptic in nature as apart from quoting the relevant provisions of law, there was
no factual aspect on which the show cause notice was issue, as a result of
which, the petitioner was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to submit an
effective reply. He has also submitted that the action is high handed and
unreasonable violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon a decision dated 08.07.2024 by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High
Court of the Telengana in the case of Rayees Metals Vs Deputy State Tax
Officer. In the said case, interference was made by the Hon'ble Court on the
Page No.# 4/6
ground that the notice was cryptic and the rights of the taxpayer under Article
21 was violated.
6. Shri Goyal, the learned counsel has however clarified that presently he is
confining his argument on the aspect of cancellation of the registration and so
far as the seizure of the goods is concerned, he would take up the matter with
the appropriate authority of the State of West Bengal.
7. Countering the submissions of the petitioner, Shri Chetia, the learned
Standing Counsel has contended that it is wholly in correct on the part of the
petitioner to state that the impugned show cause notice was cryptic in nature.
He has submitted that the opportunity was granted to the petitioner and
though the notice by the e-mail had contained the provisions of law, there was
an attachment which however could not be sent on the e-mail address. So far
as the hard copy of the show cause notice along with enclosures is concerned,
the same had returned back un-served. The learned counsel has submitted that
the petitioner has evaded receipt of the enclosures to the show cause notice
being served upon him and is trying to take advantage of his own wrong. He
has also submitted that cancellation of the registration by giving a retrospective
effect is permissible in law.
8. Shri Gogoi, the learned counsel for the State of West Bengal has endorsed
the submission advanced on behalf of the CGST and has also justified the
aspect of seizure. He has also added that since the aspect of seizure is not
presently pressed, the same would be defended at an appropriate stage. The
learned counsel for the rest of the respondents have endorsed the submissions
advanced on behalf of the CGST.
Page No.# 5/6
9. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed
before this Court have been duly examined.
10. A perusal of the Show-Cause Notice dated 10.07.2025 would reveal that
apart from stating the provisions of Section 29(2)(e) of the Central Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017, there are no facts or any details stated. There
is however an indication in the notice that supportive documents are attached
for specific details. It is the specific case of the petitioner that such details were
not furnished to him.
11. This Court has however taken consideration of the submissions advanced
on behalf of the CGST that the attachment in the e-mail would not be served in
the e-mail ID of the petitioner and also the hard copies had bounced back. Be
that as it may, Shri Chetia, the learned Standing Counsel has placed before this
Court the attachment to the show cause notice containing the materials on
which the same has been issued.
12. Without going into the contentious issue as to whether the petitioner had
evaded receipt of the enclosures to the show cause notice, this Court is of the
view that to shorten the litigation, the impugned order of cancellation dated
30.07.2025 based on the impugned show cause notice is set aside and the
petitioner be given a fresh opportunity to file his show cause in terms of the
enclosures, copy of which have been supplied to Shri Goyal, learned counsel for
the petitioner by Shri Chetia, learned Senior Standing Counsel in the Court by
itself.
13. Let such reply be filed within a period of 3 (three) weeks from today
Page No.# 6/6
along with a copy of the present order and upon such submission, the reply is
to be considered in accordance with law and by giving the petitioner a personal
hearing. The outcome of such consideration is required to be communicated to
the petitioner in writing.
14. As regards the aspect of the seizure, liberty is granted to the petitioner to
raise the same before the appropriate authority in accordance with law.
15. The writ petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
