#Registration Cancellation

ITAT Pune held PCIT lacked jurisdiction to cancel registration under Sec 12AB(4) for Sec 13(1)(c) violations as the specified violation concept is prospective from 1 Apr 2022, shielding trusts from retrospective cancellation and clarifying limits.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that GST adjudication notices must be served physically-not just electronically-after a taxpayer's registration is cancelled. Failure to do so violates natural justice principles under Section 75(4) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, rendering the adjudication order void. The ruling mandates fresh proceedings with proper notice, impacting all GST assessees in Uttar Pradesh facing post-cancellation proceedings.

Allahabad High Court holds that GST adjudication notices must be served physically-not electronically-after registration cancellation to comply with natural justice under Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act. The ruling sets aside an ex-parte order and directs fresh proceedings with proper notice, impacting all GST-registered entities facing cancellation.

Madras HC clarifies that GST registration cancellation requires evidence of fraudulent financial nexus, not merely shared premises. The ruling protects businesses from arbitrary cancellations where Input Tax Credit claims lack physical movement proof but no fraud is established.

Calcutta High Court rules that GST registration cancellation for non-filing of returns cannot be permanent without affording an opportunity to comply. The court directed restoration of registration within four weeks upon filing pending returns and payment of dues, emphasizing that revenue interests are best served by enabling compliance rather than exclusion.

Uttarakhand High Court reinforces statutory limits on GST authorities, holding that filing NIL returns does not fall under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act as a valid ground for registration cancellation. The ruling quashes show-cause notices and cancellation orders, protecting businesses from arbitrary de-registration.

Karnataka High Court rules that vehicle seizure and registration cancellation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be executed only by statutorily authorized officers. Any action by unauthorized personnel, including during pendency of a writ petition, is illegal and liable to be quashed, reinforcing procedural safeguards against administrative overreach.

Uttarakhand HC quashed a GST ex parte assessment served solely via the GST portal after the taxpayer's registration was cancelled, ruling it violates Section 169 of the CGST Act and principles of natural justice. The court directed fresh proceedings with a mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4), setting a precedent for proper service of notices in tax disputes.

The ITAT Delhi has ruled that alleged financial mismanagement under Section 13 of the Income Tax Act cannot be grounds for cancelling a charitable trust’s registration under Section 12AB. Only material deviation from the trust’s stated objects or lack of genuineness in its activities can trigger cancellation, reinforcing that procedural compliance alone does not override substantive purpose in charitable exemptions.

Punjab and Haryana High Court holds that mere generation of surplus by educational trusts does not violate Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act unless activities deviate from stated charitable objects.

Delhi High Court holds that Registrar of Firms lacks power to cancel partnership registration under IPA; only rectification of mistakes permitted under Section 64.