Samadhan Seva Samiti v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
Samadhan Seva Samiti succeeded before the Patna High Court (23 June 2026, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 945 of 2026) where registration was cancelled on the basis of a notice merely uploaded on the GST common portal without service through other prescribed modes, and the cancellation order itself reflected procedural defects. The State fairly admitted that proper service had not been effected on the society. Under Section 29 and Section 169, valid service of show-cause notice and a real hearing are mandatory before registration is cancelled; a unilateral portal upload without proof of receipt cannot substitute for service. Procedural breach vitiated the cancellation. The order was set aside with liberty to the department to proceed afresh after due compliance with service requirements and opportunity of hearing. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Important for societies on portal-only notices. Not legal advice.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.29 — Cancellation or suspension of GST registration.
- CGST S.169 — Service of notice in certain circumstances, including portal upload.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the assessee
SGS Export (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax /GST Delhi
SGS Export (P.) Ltd. won before the Delhi High Court (12 August 2026, W.P.(C) No. 12260 of 2025) on the ground that a notice proposing cancellation of registration was only uploaded on the GST portal without proof of receipt, acknowledgement or service through any other mode recognized under the CGST framework. The company learned of cancellation only when its compliance chain broke, and its restoration application was rejected as time-barred. The Court held that mere portal upload did not amount to valid service under Section 29 read with Section 169. The petitioner was entitled to apply for restoration, and that application must be decided on merits without being rejected solely for limitation flowing from defective service. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Clarifies limits of portal upload as service for registration SCNs. Not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
S R Enterprise v. Union of India
S R Enterprise, a partnership firm, obtained relief from the Gauhati High Court (24 June 2026, WP(C) No. 3345 of 2026) where cancellation rested on a stale show-cause notice issued years earlier, followed by nearly two years of departmental inaction and an eventual cancellation order passed without affording a proper or timely personal hearing. The firm contended that dormant proceedings could not be revived to cancel registration without fresh notice and opportunity. Under Section 29 and Section 169, registration orders must conform to statutory requirements, reasoned process and basic fairness. Cancellation was set aside; the authority may initiate fresh proceedings if grounds still exist, but without excusing the firm’s ongoing obligation to file returns and pay tax. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Addresses delay and dormant SCNs in registration cancellation. Not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Joydeb Karmakar @ Jaydeb Karmakar v. Union of India
Joydeb Karmakar challenged before the Calcutta High Court (24 September 2026, WPA No. 10299 of 2026) the cancellation of his GST registration for not updating bank details after separating from a joint account, with no allegation of fraud or evasion. The department had treated the stale bank mapping as grounds for cancellation under Section 29 rather than as a correctable registration defect. The issue was whether such an administrative lapse warranted cancellation without a curative opportunity and without examining whether the taxpayer continued to conduct genuine business. The Court treated the defect as rectifiable under Rules 10A and 21 read with Sections 29 and 30, emphasizing that cancellation is a drastic remedy where particulars can be updated on the portal. Cancellation was quashed subject to the assessee proving bona fides, filing pending returns and clearing dues for restoration. Outcome: assessee-favourable with remand and compliance conditions. One opportunity to correct particulars was held warranted where misconduct was not alleged. Editorial summary; not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
Sri Nur Alom v. Union of India
Sri Nur Alom challenged before the Gauhati High Court (11 September 2026, WP (C) No. 4971 of 2026) cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns and dismissal of his restoration appeal as time-barred, leaving him without a registration needed for ongoing trade. The petitioner undertook to file all pending returns and pay tax, interest and penalty if cancellation were set aside. Writ relief set aside cancellation on condition of filing pending returns within thirty days with requisite payments; limitation under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) was directed to run from the present order except where Section 44 governed annual return timelines. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Shows writ courts granting compliance-based restoration when appellate forums reject on delay alone. Not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
SRD Groups v. State of Assam
SRD Groups succeeded in the Gauhati High Court (7 September 2026, WP(C) No. 4818 of 2026) where GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns and failure to respond to the departmental notice, leaving the petitioner unable to carry on lawful business. The writ sought restoration on undertaking to regularize returns. The Court allowed restoration subject to filing all pending returns within thirty days and confirmed continued liability for tax, interest, penalty and late fee under Sections 29, 30, 39, 44, 73 and 74, aligning limitation for demand with the date of the court order where applicable. Outcome: in favour of the assessee on compliance terms. Typical Gauhati restoration template after return-default cancellation under Section 29(2)(c). Editorial summary only; not legal advice.