This compilation indexes twelve High Court rulings decided between July 2025 and August 2026 in which registrants challenged cancellation of their GST registration under Section 29(2)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (and its state-law counterparts). The rulings span the Bombay, Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Gauhati, Karnataka, Delhi, Patna, Madras, and Kerala High Courts, and collectively illustrate the range of procedural and substantive arguments being raised before constitutional courts in this area. The compilation is intended for use by in-house GST teams, Big-4 indirect-tax associates, and law-firm researchers who track High Court writ practice on registration disputes.

Research index only. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a recommendation regarding any specific GST matter. Readers should verify each ruling against the full text of the judgment, check for any subsequent stay, reversal, or appeal, and consult qualified counsel before acting on any case summary.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 29(2)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (mirrored in the respective State GST enactments) empowers the proper officer to cancel the GST registration of a taxable person where the registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Unlike voluntary cancellation under Section 29(1), cancellation under Section 29(2) is initiated by the proper officer and must be preceded by a show cause notice in Form GST REG-17 giving the registrant an opportunity to be heard; the cancellation order is issued in Form GST REG-19. The provision is among the most frequently litigated cancellation grounds before constitutional courts because the allegation of fraud or suppression carries significant legal consequences, including the potential for retrospective cancellation and downstream denial of input tax credit.

The 12 rulings

1. Priyansh Bullion Llp vs Superintendent Range Iv Div Ill, Mumbai

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 4 August 2026
Sections engaged: 29(2)(e)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court as Writ Petition No. 251 of 2026. The petitioner, Priyansh Bullion LLP (through its partner Mahesh Mithalalji Tripathi), was aggrieved by the cancellation of its GST registration by the Respondent No. 1 under Form GST Reg-19 vide order dated 8th July 2024, and also challenged the subsequent order dated 14th August 2024 rejecting the petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation. The appeal was filed against both the cancellation order and the rejection of the revocation application; the full operative outcome is not specified in the source preview available.

2. M/S. Jk Technology vs Deputy State Tax Officer

Bench: Telangana High Court
Date: 9 July 2026
Sections engaged: 29(2)(c), 29(2)(e)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 21690 of 2026) was filed before the Telangana High Court challenging the cancellation order dated 22.01.2024. According to the source preview, the impugned cancellation order was passed on a ground alien to the show cause notice that had been issued to the petitioner on 08.08.2023 in Form GST REG-17, raising a core natural-justice objection that the cancellation order went beyond the scope of the notice. The full operative disposition is not specified in the source preview.

3. Hanumant Baburao Ekwade vs Union Of India

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 18 June 2026
Sections engaged: 29(2)(e)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 427 of 2026) was filed before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the petitioner arguing that the impugned notice was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice and was liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Counsel for the petitioner relied on a coordinate bench decision of the same court in the case of Nirakar Ramchandra Pradhan vs. Union of India & Ors., contending that any proceeding for cancellation of GST registration based on a defective notice would be unsustainable in law. The full operative disposition is not specified in the source preview.

4. Florida Sol Vent Private Limited vs The Superintendent Cgst And Central

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 1 April 2026
Sections engaged: 29(2)(a), 29(2)(e)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 655 of 2026) challenged the Order-in-Original dated 04 December 2025 (issued on 05 December 2025) by which the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled. The operative portion of the impugned order, as extracted in the source preview, directed the maintenance and continuation of the ab-initio cancellation of the Tax Payer's GSTIN on the ground that the same was justifiable, sustainable, and tenable in GST law, invoking both relevant sub-clauses of Section 29(2) read with Rule 21(e) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The full operative court disposition is not specified in the source preview.

5. M/S Anay Trading Trade Name Rajesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Bench: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date: 28 January 2026
Sections engaged: 29(2)(e)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 1971 of 2026, Neutral Citation 2026:MPHC-JBP:7693) challenged the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax, Sagar Circle, Sagar, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration by a non-speaking order. As described in the source preview, the petitioner had been served a show cause notice dated 27.09.2024 alleging that the registration was obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, and had submitted a detailed reply on 09.10.2024; however, the cancellation was effected on the footing that no reply had been submitted on the day fixed for personal hearing and that the petitioner had not appeared. The full operative court disposition is not specified in the source preview.

6. Prakash Kumar Nayak vs Commissioner

Bench: Orissa High Court
Date: 19 December 2025
Sections engaged: 29(2)(e)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP(C) No. 36279 of 2025) before the Orissa High Court at Cuttack challenged the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bhadrak Circle, cancelling the petitioner's registration certificate on the ground envisaged in clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Odisha/Central GST Act. According to the source preview, the petitioner had been granted a registration certificate with effect from 05.09.2023 for a business in the name of "Prakash Arts," and it was submitted that the proprietor could not be present at the time of inspection on 21.12.2023 due to a serious health issue suffered since November 2023, upon which the authority proceeded to cancel the registration pursuant to an enquiry report. The full operative court disposition is not specified in the source preview.

7. Page No.# 1/6 vs The Union Of India And Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 11 December 2025
Sections engaged: 29(2)(e)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP(C)/4700/2025, Neutral Citation 2025:GAU-AS:17267) was filed before the Gauhati High Court (the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) by the petitioner — identified in the source text as Pritam Sovasaria — against multiple respondents including the Union of India, the Principal Commissioner of Central GST (Guwahati), the Superintendent (I B Range, DGGI, Guwahati), and State GST authorities of West Bengal. The appeal was filed against the respondents in the context of a GST-related dispute; the source preview is substantially procedural and does not disclose the full substantive ground or the operative disposition of the court.

8. M/S Buraaq Enterprises vs State Of Karnataka

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 2 December 2025
Sections engaged: 29(2)(e)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 36174 of 2025, Neutral Citation 2025:KHC:50459) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the cancellation order issued under Form GST REG-19 dated 12.09.2024 bearing Ref. No. ZA2902924051522E. The petitioner, M/s Buraaq Enterprises (represented by its proprietor Shri Daulat Basha), sought quashing of that cancellation order; the source preview indicates the matter came on for preliminary hearing and does not disclose the full operative disposition.

9. Veenu Bajaj ( Proprietor M/S Addvertex ) vs The Commissioner Of Central Goods And

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 22 September 2025
Sections engaged: 29(2)(e)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P.(C) 14704/2025) was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the Order for Cancellation of Registration dated 11th December, 2024, by which the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 31st October, 2017. As set out in the source preview, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 9th October, 2024 to the petitioner on the ground that the firm was found to be non-existent; the petitioner did not file a reply to the SCN, and the GST registration was consequently cancelled. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for revocation; the full operative court disposition is not specified in the source preview.

10. M/S Shiv Construction vs The State Of Bihar

Bench: Patna High Court
Date: 1 September 2025
Sections engaged: 29(2)(e)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17716 of 2024) was filed before the Patna High Court by M/s Shiv Construction, through its Proprietor Rajiv Ranjan, against the State of Bihar and other respondents including a private third-party respondent. The matter was heard by the court and submissions were made by counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel for respondent no. 3; the source preview is procedural in nature and does not disclose the substantive grounds of challenge or the full operative disposition of the court.

11. M/S.P.Ashraf Ali vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 1 August 2025
Sections engaged: 25, 29(2)(e)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P. No. 24986 of 2025 with WMP No. 28159 of 2025) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the cancellation of registration order in Form GST REG-19 bearing Ref. No. ZA330525284277B dated 28.05.2025 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ambur, Vellore, and to direct restoration of the petitioner's GST registration (GSTIN 33DRXPA6580G1ZG). The challenge was to the order of cancellation dated 28.05.2025; the full operative court disposition is not specified in the source preview.

12. M/S. Heavy Steel Industries vs The Superintendent Of Central Tax &

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 15 July 2025
Sections engaged: 29(2)(e)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP(C) No. 20617 of 2024, Neutral Citation 2025:KER:52257) was finally heard and decided on 15.07.2025 before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam. The source preview discloses that the petitioner, M/s. Heavy Steel Industries (represented by its proprietor Rahamathulla), had received a Form GST REG-17 Show Cause Notice dated 16/06/2023, followed by an Order of Cancellation of Registration under Form GST REG-19 dated 30.06.2023, and subsequently made an application before Respondent No. 2 dated 16.10.2023; the full operative reasoning and disposition of the judgment are not specified in the source preview.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Writ jurisdiction as the primary forum. All twelve matters reached the relevant High Court by way of writ petitions under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India, confirming that constitutional courts remain the dominant arena for challenging Section 29(2)(e) cancellation orders where the GST appellate hierarchy has not afforded relief or where urgency/procedural infirmity is alleged.
Natural justice and defective notice as a recurring ground. At least two matters — M/s. JK Technology (case 2) and Hanumant Baburao Ekwade (case 3) — expressly raise the ground that the cancellation order went beyond the scope of the show cause notice, or that the notice itself was defective, rendering the cancellation proceedings unsustainable. This mirrors a well-established line of High Court authority that procedural compliance with the SCN-to-order sequence is treated as a jurisdictional requirement.
Non-speaking orders and deemed non-appearance. In M/s Anay Trading (case 5), the source preview reveals that the registration was cancelled by a non-speaking order on the footing that the petitioner had not appeared for personal hearing, even though the petitioner claims a detailed reply had been filed. This pattern — cancellation attributed to non-appearance despite a prior reply having been submitted — appears as a distinct procedural grievance.
Retrospective cancellation disputes. In Veenu Bajaj (case 9), the cancellation was effected with retrospective effect from 31st October, 2017, i.e., the very inception of the GST regime, raising questions about the proportionality and legal basis for long-dated retrospective cancellations under Section 29(2)(e).
Multi-authority and multi-state respondent configurations. The Gauhati High Court matter (case 7) involved respondents from both the Central GST administration and West Bengal state tax authorities, illustrating that Section 29(2)(e) disputes can involve concurrent jurisdiction of central and state enforcement wings, complicating the procedural landscape for registrants.

How to use this compilation

This index is designed as a starting point for locating relevant rulings in Section 29(2)(e) GST registration cancellation litigation. Each entry provides the court, date, sections engaged, and a brief procedural note drawn strictly from the available source preview. Researchers should always retrieve the full text of the judgment from the official court portal (e.g., indiankanoon.org, the relevant High Court's judgment portal, or the CGST litigation tracker) before relying on any ruling in a submission, opinion, or advisory. The source previews on which this index is based are truncated, and the operative paragraphs — including the final order, any conditions imposed, and any liberty reserved — may not be fully reflected here.

Before citing any ruling in a live matter, practitioners should verify whether the judgment has been subsequently stayed, reversed on appeal, or distinguished by a later coordinate or division bench. High Court orders in writ matters relating to GST registration cancellation are frequently subject to modification at the final hearing stage, and interim orders granting stay or directing restoration are common. It is also advisable to check whether the CBIC or the relevant State Tax authority has issued any circular or instruction that addresses the specific procedural ground raised in the ruling, as such instructions can affect how lower authorities respond to similar cases. Researchers dealing with SGST-parallel legislation should additionally verify the precise wording of the relevant state enactment, as minor textual differences between State GST Acts and the CGST Act can affect the applicability of a given ruling across jurisdictions.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 29(2)(e) CGST: 12 High Court Rulings on GST Registration Cancellation (2025–2026)