M/s DREAM EVENTS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MOHAN v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ROHINI DIVISION, WEST DELHI

📅 June 8, 2026 👤 Team Batuk Consultancy 📂 GST, GST Case Laws

High Court, Delhi

Sanjeev Sachdeva, Justice & Ravinder Dudeja, Justice

M/s DREAM EVENTS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MOHAN

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ROHINI DIVISION, WEST DELHI

W.P.(C) 2419/2024 dated 29.02.2024

Law : GST

Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017

Relevant Section : Section 29

Rule Number : Rule 23 & 86B

Rule Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017

Decision : In favour of assessee

Order for cancellation of registration- without mentioning the specific reason of cancellation- The Petitioner impugns order dated 27.05.2023 whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled retrospectively with effect from 27.05.2022. Vide Show Cause Notice dated 25.04.2023 petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the registration be not cancelled with the reason “non compliance of any specified provisions in the GST Act or the Rules made thereunder as may be prescribed”. It is to be noted that though the Show Cause Notice states that “non compliance of any specified provisions in the GST Act or the Rules made thereunder as may be prescribed” however it failed to mention which specific provisions have not been complied with. The order states that effective date of cancellation of registration is 27.05.2022 i.e., a retrospective date. There is no material on record to show as to why the registration is sought to be cancelled retrospectively. – Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that petitioner was not found functioning at the registered address and was in violation of 86 (B) of CGST Rules 2017. – Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has changed his registered address, however, in view of the cancellation of the GST registration, the petitioner is not able to upload the same. Section 29(2) provides that the cancellation of registration of a taxpayer can be done by the proper officer if he deems fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be bases on some objective criteria. – Held- Show cause Notice and Impugned Order to be set aside and the registration of the Petitioner is restored.

Represented By:

Counsel for the Petitioner: Pranay Jain, Advocate

M/s DREAM EVENTS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MOHAN v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ROHINI DIVISION, WEST DELHI

M/s DREAM EVENTS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MOHAN v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ROHINI DIVISION, WEST DELHI

🔒 Premium Content

Quick Link

Get In Touch