Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update/ 2026-27/0058

BOLDRIDGE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

GST UPDATE

Hon’ble Court: THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Case Title: BOLDRIDGE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Petition No. & Citation : WP(C)/3328/2026
Hon’ble Judge(s) JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
Date of Order 24.06.2026
Outcome Appeal Allowed
 

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Boldridge Private Limited, was issued a show cause notice in Form GST REG-17 proposing cancellation of its GST registration on the ground that it had failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. The notice directed the petitioner to submit a reply and appear for personal hearing. However, the same went unnoticed due to miscommunication between its directors and tax consultant, resulting in failure to file a reply within the stipulated period. Consequently, Order in Form GST REG-19, cancelling the GST registration retrospectively was passed. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the the Gauhati High Court, contending that both the show cause notice and the cancellation order were legally unsustainable.

Relevant Section / Rule

  • Section 29(2)(c) and Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017
  • Rule 21A, Rule 22 and Rule 21(h) of the CGST Rules, 2017

Question before Hon’ble Court

  • Whether a GST registration can be cancelled through a non-speaking order in Form GST REG-19 without assigning reasons?

Brief Arguments by Petitioner

  • The appellant submitted that although the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST common portal, the appellant became aware of the show cause notice only after the time prescribed for filing the reply had expired and the cancellation order had already been passed.
 
  • It was argued that Rule 22 of the CGST Rules requires cancellation of registration to be effected through Form GST REG-19, wherein the Proper Officer is required to record reasons for cancellation. However, the impugned order contained no reasons and was merely a cryptic, non-speaking order passed without application of mind. Reliance was placed on High Courts own prior judgement.

Brief Arguments by Respondent

  • The petitioner had admittedly failed to file GST returns continuously for more than six months. Therefore, the delay and negligence were entirely attributable to the petitioner.
 
  • The petitioner neither filed an application for revocation within the prescribed time nor preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Findings and Judgement

The Court made the detailed analysis of the various Sections and Rules thereunder and made the following analysis:
  • Cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns is permissible only by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 22 of the CGST Rules. The Proper Officer is required to issue a show cause notice in Form GST REG-17, consider the taxpayer's reply and thereafter pass a reasoned order in Form GST REG-19. In the instant case, the show cause notice was vague and deficient, as it merely stated that the petitioner had failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months without specifying the exact tax periods of default. Such a notice failed to disclose the precise allegations and, therefore, did not provide an effective opportunity of defence.
 
  • Form GST REG-19 specifically requires the Proper Officer to record reasons for cancellation. The impugned order cancelled the registration without assigning any reasons, contrary to the statutory requirement. Recording reasons is an essential as it demonstrates application of mind and acts as a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of statutory powers.
 
  • Failure of the taxpayer to file a reply or appear for personal hearing does not absolve the Proper Officer of the obligation to pass a reasoned order. The Court held that the statutory illegality in passing a non-speaking cancellation order outweighed the delay, particularly since cancellation of GST registration has serious adverse civil and business consequences.
Accordingly, the Court held that the Order cancelling registration is non – speaking and therefore unsustainable. The Court granted the petitioner one month's time to choose either of the following options:
i) Submit a reply to the show cause notice explaining why the GST registration should not be cancelled; or
ii) Furnish all pending GST returns and pay the entire tax dues along with applicable interest, late fee and penalty, if any, in terms of the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules.

CA Pradeep Jain_ 

This is solely for educational purpose
Readers can also access this from our 
Linkedin account : www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16 
& Our Website : new.capradeepjain.com
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com