Facts of the Case: M/S Shikhar Rail Infra challenged an order dated 27.6.2024 cancelling its GST registration, and the appellate order dated 31.10.2025 dismissing its appeal, seeking a mandamus to forthwith restore the registration. The petitioner relied on an identical controversy decided by the same High Court in M/s Sunita Singh Construction vs State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 1183 of 2025, decided 28.10.2025), which had itself followed the coordinate bench ruling in M/s Chandra Sain v. Union of India (Writ Tax No.147 of 2022) — holding that a registration cancellation order disclosing no reasons for the "harsh action" fails the test of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issues Involved:

  1. Whether a GST registration cancellation order that discloses no reasons, and is passed without application of mind, can be sustained.
  2. Whether such an order can stand merely because the statutory appeal against it was dismissed as time-barred, with the appellate authority lacking power to condone the delay.

Petitioner's Arguments:

  • No opportunity of hearing was granted before cancellation; the power under Section 29(2) is discretionary and cannot be exercised mechanically.
  • The cancellation order was ex-parte and non-reasoned, violating principles of natural justice and Article 14.
  • Relied on Sunita Singh Construction and Chandra Sain, and on the Supreme Court's ruling in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks permitting writ jurisdiction despite an unavailed alternate remedy where the order lacks reasons/jurisdiction.

Respondent's Arguments:

  • As recorded in the precedent relied upon by the petitioner, the department's position is that an opportunity of hearing was granted but was simply not availed by the assessee, so the order cannot be said to have been passed without any opportunity.

Court Order / Findings:

  • Following Sunita Singh Construction, the Court found that the impugned cancellation order dated 27.6.2024 disclosed no reason for the harsh action of cancellation, and being passed without application of mind, did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution.
  • Both the cancellation order dated 27.6.2024 and the appellate order dated 31.10.2025 were quashed and set aside; the petitioner was directed to file its reply to the show-cause within three weeks, with the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing and considering the defence raised.

Important Clarification:

  • A GST registration cancellation order is a quasi-judicial order with civil consequences affecting the right to carry on business under Article 19 — an order that discloses no reasons fails the Article 14 non-arbitrariness test and is liable to be quashed, even where the statutory appeal against it was rightly rejected as time-barred and the appellate authority lacks power to condone delay.

Sections Involved:

  • Section 29(2), Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — discretionary power to cancel GST registration.
  • Article 14 and Article 19, Constitution of India — non-arbitrariness and right to carry on business/trade.

Decision – In Favour of: Assessee. Cancellation and appellate orders quashed; matter remitted to the show-cause reply stage for fresh adjudication.

Related Case Laws: M/s Sunita Singh Construction vs State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 1183 of 2025, decided 28.10.2025); M/s Chandra Sain v. Union of India (Writ Tax No.147 of 2022); Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai ((1998) 8 SCC 1); compare the natural-justice approach in M/S Shree Tirupati Agro Food Industries vs State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 1555 of 2025), decided the same day by the same Bench.

Case Details: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench | Writ Tax No. 1593 of 2025 | Coram: Hon'ble Justice Manish Kumar | Date of Order: 15.12.2025.

Link to Download the Order: View/Download the Order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.