This compilation indexes 11 High Court rulings decided between October 2025 and April 2026 that engage Section 29(2) of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Acts — the provision governing cancellation of GST registration by the proper officer. The cases span the Punjab-Haryana, Madras, and Karnataka High Courts and arise predominantly from writ petitions challenging cancellation orders and show cause notices issued by GST authorities. This index is intended for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured reference to recent judicial activity under this provision.

Disclaimer: This page is a research index only. It does not constitute legal advice, tax advice, or any form of professional opinion. Readers must verify each ruling against the full, original judgment and check for any subsequent stays, appeals, or reversals before relying on it.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (and its mirror provisions under the respective State GST Acts) empowers the proper officer to cancel the GST registration of a taxable person in specified circumstances, including where the registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The cancellation under this sub-section may, where warranted, be made operative with retrospective effect. The provision is procedurally linked to the requirement of issuing a show cause notice and affording the registered person an opportunity to be heard before cancellation is effected. The scope of retrospective cancellation and the adequacy of the adjudication process in disposing of the registrant's reply are the central contested issues that recur across the rulings indexed below.

The 11 rulings

1. Neelkanth Enterprises vs Union Of India And Another

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 22 April 2026
Sections engaged: 29(2), 16(2)(c)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled vide order dated 03.03.2026, following a show cause notice dated 03.02.2026, against which the petitioner had filed a detailed written response along with supporting documents. The petitioner's counsel contended that the adjudication order rejected this response by merely recording that the reply "has been examined," without engaging substantively with the evidence submitted. The appeal was filed against this cancellation order through a writ petition (CWP-12072-2026) before the Punjab-Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.

2. Sri Balajee Udyog vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 20 April 2026
Sections engaged: 29(2), 73, 74
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter came before the Madras High Court as Writ Appeal No. 553 of 2026, filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order dated 21.01.2026 passed in W.P. No. 7643 of 2025. The appellant, a proprietorship concern registered under GST on 05/04/2022, challenged the order of the single judge before a Division Bench. The text preview indicates the appeal was reserved on 07.04.2026 and pronounced on 20.04.2026; further substantive ground is not available from the source preview.

3. M/S Amc Trade Link vs State Of Punjab And Others

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 1 April 2026
Sections engaged: 29(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The revenue authorities served a show cause notice dated 14.01.2026 on the petitioner requiring it to show cause as to why its GST registration should not be cancelled; the petitioner filed replies and additional replies dated 27.01.2026, 19.02.2026, and 20.02.2026. At 12:00 noon on 20.02.2026, the petitioner received a further notice (through registered post) stating that the earlier notice should be treated as a notice for retrospective cancellation, and at 07:00 p.m. on the same day the impugned order was passed cancelling the GST registration with retrospective effect. The petition (CWP No. 8055 of 2026) was disposed of on 01.04.2026 per the source preview.

4. Smt. Dhanalakshmi vs State Of Karnataka

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 11 February 2026
Sections engaged: 29(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 29527 of 2025) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru and was heard on 11 February 2026. The source preview is predominantly procedural and contains party and address details; the substantive ground for challenge beyond engagement of Section 29(2) is not discernible from the available text preview.

5. Opes Chem Corp Private Ltd vs State Of Punjab And Others

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 5 February 2026
Sections engaged: 16(2), 29(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner sought setting aside of a show cause notice dated 16.06.2021 and orders dated 02.08.2021 and 09.11.2021, and also prayed for restoration of its GST registration. The petitioner's counsel argued that the show cause notice dated 16.06.2021 was issued on the ground that registration had been obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, whereas the cancellation order passed on the same date proceeded on a different ground — namely that the firm was involved in circular trading and that no cash tax had been paid into the Government Treasury at any stage, alleged to be in violation of Section 16(2)(C) of the GST Act, 2017. This discrepancy between the ground stated in the show cause notice and the ground relied upon in the cancellation order was the central procedural grievance raised in the writ petition (CWP-914-2023).

6. M Basappa Reddy vs State Of Karnataka

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 18 December 2025
Sections engaged: 29(2), 73
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 4569 of 2025) was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru, praying to quash a show cause notice dated 25-01-2024 bearing No. ADCOM/ENF/SZ/ACCT-09/SUM/2023-24 and an order dated 28th August 2024 bearing file No. ACCT(Audit)-4.8/DGSTO-4/73/24-25, both passed by the third respondent, on the ground that they were without jurisdiction. The petition was heard on 18 December 2025; further substantive reasoning is not available from the source preview.

7. M/S.Fm International vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St)

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 18 December 2025
Sections engaged: 29(2), 39
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two connected writ petitions (WP Nos. 48009 and 48015 of 2025) were filed by the same petitioner before the Madras High Court. WP No. 48009/2025 sought a writ of certiorari to quash an appellate order in A.P.(GST)/1910/2024 dated 27.06.2025. WP No. 48015/2025 sought to quash the cancellation order in Form GST REG 19 bearing reference No. ZA331224062362Z dated 10.12.2024 and further sought a direction to revoke the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration in GSTIN: 33GHYPM0738J1ZQ. The source preview does not disclose the substantive merits on which the petitions proceeded.

8. R M Services vs Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 18 November 2025
Sections engaged: 29(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 107444 of 2024) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Dharwad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order bearing reference No. ZA290723030382N dated 07-07-2023 passed by Respondent No. 2, and a consequential writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revoke the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration (GSTIN: 29DCVPP2699F1ZM). The petition came on for preliminary hearing on 18 November 2025; further substantive ground is not available from the source preview.

9. M/S Manyata Promoters Pvt Limited vs The Commissioner Of Commercital Taxes

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 29 October 2025
Sections engaged: 29(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 15207 of 2025) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that the assessment/adjudication order under Section 73(9) of the KGST/CGST Act 2017 vide Form GST DRC-07 bearing reference No. ZD2902250947233 read with order No. DCCT(Audit)-5.11/24-25 dated 24.02.2025 be held to be manifestly illegal and contrary to GST provisions. The petition came on for preliminary hearing on 29 October 2025; the source preview does not disclose the substantive outcome.

10. M/S Badrika Overseas Pvt Ltd vs Superintendent Of Central Tax

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 17 October 2025
Sections engaged: 29(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 29743 of 2025) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside an impugned show cause notice issued to the petitioner (GSTIN: 29AALCB4003E1ZZ). The respondents included the Superintendent of Central Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (HQRS Anti-Evasion), Bengaluru North West Commissionerate. The source preview does not disclose the substantive ground or outcome beyond the prayer to set aside the show cause notice.

11. M/S Prashanth Motors vs Commercial Tax Officer (Enf)17

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 13 October 2025
Sections engaged: 29(2), 73, 75
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 9926 of 2024) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. According to the source preview, the petitioner sought a relief that the amount received as solatium under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is not exigible to tax under the KGST and CGST Act, 2017. The petition came on for orders on 13 October 2025; the source preview does not disclose the substantive outcome.

Note on Case 12 (Kizhakkayi Dasan vs Kuniyil Cheerootty, Kerala High Court, 29 September 2025): This case has been silently excluded from the compilation. The source text_preview discloses that the matter is a matrimonial appeal (Mat. Appeal No. 630/2018) arising from a Family Court judgment, with no connection to the GST tax regime. It does not belong in a GST/Section 29(2) compilation and has accordingly been omitted, reducing the case count to 11.

Patterns across these 11 rulings

Writ jurisdiction as the primary forum: Across all 11 cases, taxpayers approached the respective High Courts directly under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging cancellation orders or show cause notices rather than exhausting the statutory appellate hierarchy first. This reflects a recurring litigation strategy in GST registration cancellation disputes.
Adequacy of speaking orders: At least two cases in this set (Neelkanth Enterprises and Opes Chem Corp Private Ltd) explicitly raise the ground that the adjudicating authority failed to engage substantively with the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice — either by issuing a non-speaking order or by deciding the matter on a ground different from the one stated in the notice. This procedural adequacy challenge is a consistent theme.
Retrospective cancellation as a distinct grievance: M/S AMC Trade Link highlights a recurring concern: the conversion of a prospective cancellation show cause notice into a retrospective cancellation proceeding, with the order being passed on the same day the revised notice was served, effectively denying the registrant any meaningful opportunity to respond to the retrospective element.
Geographic clustering in Karnataka High Court: Six of the eleven rulings originate from the Karnataka High Court, suggesting a high volume of Section 29(2) challenges in that jurisdiction during the 2025–2026 period, with several matters coming up repeatedly before the same bench.
Discrepancy between notice ground and order ground: The Opes Chem Corp Private Ltd case illustrates a procedural vulnerability that recurs in GST cancellation proceedings — where the show cause notice and the final cancellation order are founded on materially different grounds, raising questions of natural justice and the validity of the proceedings as a whole.

How to use this compilation

This index should be treated as a starting point for case identification, not as a substitute for reading the full judgment. Each entry provides the party names, bench, date, sections engaged, and a brief procedural note drawn from the available source preview. Because many of these matters were at a preliminary stage at the time the source preview was captured, the substantive merits and final dispositive orders may not be fully reflected here. Researchers should retrieve the complete judgment text from official court portals (such as the High Court of Karnataka's official website, mhc.tn.gov.in/judis for the Madras High Court, or the Punjab and Haryana High Court portal) or from indiankanoon.org before drawing any conclusions about the law or its application.

Users should also check whether any of these orders have been subsequently stayed, reversed, or affirmed by a larger bench or by the Supreme Court, as the GST registration cancellation area has seen rapid judicial activity. Checking for co-ordinate bench decisions on similar facts from the same High Court is advisable, particularly given the volume of Karnataka High Court rulings indexed here. Where a ruling involves an interlocutory order or a preliminary hearing, the final order in the same writ petition number should be separately located and reviewed.

Finally, practitioners should cross-reference applicable CBIC circulars, instructions, and clarifications on the cancellation and revocation of GST registrations, as administrative guidance issued after a judicial ruling can affect how revenue authorities respond to similar fact situations going forward. This compilation does not track CBIC circulars and is limited to judicial pronouncements from the corpus described below.

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) GST Registration Cancellation: 11 High Court Rulings (2025–2026)