This page is part of the TaxNoticeAI structured case-law index covering High Court rulings across Indian jurisdictions. It is maintained for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a consolidated reference point for Section 29 litigation. The 12 cases in this corpus extract, drawn from proceedings decided between April and May 2026, predominantly concern Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and allied state GST statutes — specifically registration cancellation and related writ proceedings — alongside a small number of non-tax criminal matters in which the same section number arises under different statutes. Each entry is reproduced verbatim from the structured metadata; no substantive holdings have been fabricated.

Research index only — not legal or tax advice. This page summarises publicly available judgment data for research purposes. Always verify against the full text of the judgment and consult a qualified professional before relying on any ruling.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 empowers the proper officer to cancel or suspend the GST registration of a person in specified circumstances — including cases where the registered person has contravened the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder, has not filed returns for a prescribed period, or where the business has been discontinued or transferred. The section also provides for cancellation on the application of the registered person. Procedural safeguards require the proper officer to issue a show cause notice before passing a cancellation order, and the registered person is entitled to an opportunity of hearing. Where registration is cancelled, the effective date of cancellation — including whether it operates retrospectively — has been a recurring subject of judicial scrutiny across multiple High Courts.

The 12 rulings

1. M/S Sagar Enterprise And Anr vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 6 May 2026
Sections engaged: 29
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioners approached the Gauhati High Court by way of a writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as reflected in the source preview for WP(C)/2357/2026 (citation 2026:GAU-AS:6470). The respondents include the Union of India (Ministry of Finance), the State of Assam (Department of Finance and Taxation), the Principal Commissioner of State Tax, and the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The substantive dispositive reasoning was not captured within the available text preview.

2. Karanbir Singh @ Karan vs State Of Punjab

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 6 May 2026
Sections engaged: 37, 29
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case bearing FIR No. 121 dated 02.06.2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 21(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural. The gravamen of the FIR, per the source preview for CRM-M-3391-2026, was that the petitioner and two co-accused were alleged to be engaged in the illegal trade of Diacetylmorphone (Heroin) and illegal ammunition. The dispositive outcome on the bail application was not captured within the available text preview.

3. Birinchi Kumar Gogoi vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 30 April 2026
Sections engaged: 29, 39
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview for WP(C)/2273/2026 (citation 2026:GAU-AS:5991), the petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of his registration in terms of Section 29, with the respondents including the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Central Excise and Customs, and the Jurisdictional Superintendent, CGST, Dibrugarh Range-I. The matter was heard before the Gauhati High Court; the full dispositive reasoning was not captured within the available text preview.

4. M/S Royal Wines vs State Of H.P. & Ors

Bench: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date: 27 April 2026
Sections engaged: 29
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview for CWP No. 6123 of 2026, the petitioner is the holder of an L-1 License (Wholesale Liquor License) with an area of operation in Districts Shimla and Kinnaur, and was also granted an L-1 License for those districts for the years 2024-25 and 2025-26. At the end of Financial Year 2025-26, the respondents took a decision to continue the petitioner's Old L-1 License into Financial Year 2026-27, with the renewed licence granted on 02.04.2026 and valid from 01.04.2026 to 31.03.2027; the petition was heard at the stage of considering the prayer for interim relief, and the full dispositive outcome was not captured within the available text preview.

5. Dwarkadhish Metals vs Union Of India And Others

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 21 April 2026
Sections engaged: 29
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview for CWP-11910-2026, the petitioner challenged both a show cause notice dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) proposing cancellation of its GST registration and an order dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) by which the GST registration was retrospectively cancelled. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the show cause notice was vague as it contained no reasons and that the supporting documents referenced therein were not appended; the order of cancellation was also alleged to suffer from legal infirmities. The full dispositive reasoning was not captured within the available text preview.

6. M/S Friend Enterprises vs Commissioner, Central Goods And

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 18 April 2026
Sections engaged: 29, 30
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview for CWP-11574-2026, a show cause notice dated 30.06.2023 was issued to the petitioner as to why its GST registration should not be cancelled; no written response was filed by the petitioner, and through an order dated 12.07.2023 the GST registration was cancelled with effect from 16.08.2020. An application under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 seeking revocation of that cancellation was rejected on 13.09.2023, and the petitioner's statutory appeal against the retrospective cancellation was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 24.06.2024. The retrospective cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration is the subject matter of the writ petition; the full dispositive outcome was not captured within the available text preview.

7. Bhausab Madhukar Gore vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 15 April 2026
Sections engaged: 29
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur as CRA No. 605 of 2025, with the respondent being the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Raipur Regional Unit, Indore Zonal Unit, per the source preview (citation 2026:CGHC:17109-DB). The text preview records the parties and head-note detail but does not extend to the substantive grounds of the appeal or the dispositive outcome; accordingly, only these procedural particulars can be stated from the available source.

8. Pushap Lata vs State Of Punjab And Anr

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 10 April 2026
Sections engaged: 28, 29, 23
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview for CRR-2686-2010 (O&M), this is a Criminal Revision Petition filed against the judgment dated 23.09.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, which had dismissed an appeal by the petitioner against a judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2010 and an order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barnala. The proceedings arose out of a complaint under Section 28(1) of The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 for violation of Section 29 of that Act; the petition was reserved on 20.03.2026 and pronounced on 10.04.2026, with the full dispositive outcome not captured within the available text preview.

9. Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 6 April 2026
Sections engaged: 29, 73(10), 44
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview for WP(C)/1446/2026 (citation 2026:GAU-AS:5077), the actual petitioners are R P Infratech and Anr, represented by its partner Sri Ritam Ritu Phukan, with respondents including the State of Assam (Finance Taxation Department), the Commissioner of State Tax, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Guwahati Zone-A), and the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Guwahati-A-10). The matter was heard before the Gauhati High Court and a full judgment was pronounced on 06.04.2026; the substantive dispositive reasoning was not captured within the available text preview.

10. Page No.# 1/4 vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 6 April 2026
Sections engaged: 29, 39
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview for WP(C)/1978/2026 (citation 2026:GAU-AS:5069), the actual petitioner is Sakil Zaman, son of Habil Ali, resident of Village Pakabangip Para, District Darrang, Assam, with respondents including the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Central Excise and Customs, and the Jurisdiction Officer/Superintendent, CGST, Mangaldai Range. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of his registration in terms of Section 29; the full dispositive reasoning was not captured within the available text preview, though the full judgment was pronounced on 06.04.2026.

11. Sarda Eco Power Ltd vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 6 April 2026
Sections engaged: 29, 30
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview for WP(C)/1970/2026, the petitioner Sarda Eco Power Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, represented by its Director, with respondents including the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes (Guwahati Zone-C), and the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Guwahati Unit-D). The matter was heard before the Gauhati High Court and a full judgment was pronounced on 06.04.2026; the substantive dispositive reasoning was not captured within the available text preview.

12. Akhilesh Parasram Zaria vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Butibori Nagpur

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 6 April 2026
Sections engaged: 20, 29
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview (citation 2026:BHC-NAG:5361), this matter comprises Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 2023 and Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2024 heard together before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The appeals were filed against the State of Maharashtra through the Police Station Officer, Police Station Butibori, Nagpur; the text preview records party details and counsel appearances but does not extend to the substantive grounds of appeal or the dispositive outcome, and accordingly only these procedural particulars can be stated from the available source.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

GST registration cancellation dominates the dataset. The majority of cases in this compilation — including those before the Gauhati High Court and the Punjab-Haryana High Court — involve challenges to orders cancelling GST registration, whether prospectively or retrospectively, with petitioners approaching the relevant High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Retrospective cancellation is a recurring flashpoint. In multiple cases (including Dwarkadhish Metals and M/S Friend Enterprises), the challenge is directed specifically at the retrospective date of cancellation rather than cancellation itself, indicating that the effective date of the cancellation order is a consistently contested issue before the courts.
Vagueness in show cause notices is a common procedural grievance. At least one case in this compilation (Dwarkadhish Metals) expressly raises the ground that the show cause notice contained no reasons and that supporting documents referenced in it were not actually appended — a procedural fairness argument that appears with regularity in GST cancellation litigation nationally.
Multiple High Courts are simultaneously seized of similar Section 29 disputes. The Gauhati High Court, Punjab-Haryana High Court, Himachal Pradesh High Court, Chhattisgarh High Court, and Bombay High Court all feature in this single corpus extract, reflecting that GST registration cancellation litigation under Section 29 is geographically dispersed and not confined to any single jurisdiction.
Outcome data is largely unavailable at the preview stage. Across all 12 cases, the outcome direction is recorded as "Outcome not specified in source," indicating that the available text previews do not extend to the dispositive portions of the judgments. Researchers should access the full text of each judgment for the operative order.

How to use this compilation

Researchers should treat each case summary in this index as a structured finding-aid, not a substitute for the full judgment. The identity fields — Bench, Date, Sections engaged, and Outcome — are reproduced verbatim from structured metadata and should be independently verified against the original order as published on indiankanoon.org or the relevant court's official portal before being cited in any submission, opinion, or filing. Metadata entries can contain transcription artefacts, and the "Outcome not specified in source" designation in this compilation reflects the limits of the available text preview rather than any editorial conclusion about the merits.

Researchers should additionally check for subsequent developments in each matter. A High Court ruling may have been stayed by a Division Bench or the Supreme Court, reversed on appeal, distinguished in a later coordinate-bench decision, or rendered academic by legislative amendment. The TaxNoticeAI corpus is updated periodically, but a lag always exists between a judgment being pronounced and its appearing in the database. For matters with immediate practical significance, verification through the relevant court registry or a primary legal database subscription is advisable.

Where a ruling turns on an administrative instruction, circular, or notification issued by CBIC or a state tax authority, that instrument should be sourced and read independently alongside the judgment. Circulars and instructions can be withdrawn, superseded, or clarified after the date of the judgment, and the version operative on the date of the relevant proceedings may differ from currently applicable guidance. Cross-referencing court rulings with parallel CBIC or state GST council instructions is standard research hygiene for GST practitioners.

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 CGST/GST Registration Cancellation: 12 High Court Rulings (2026)