FACTS & SUBJECT MATTER: 
(1) It is apparent from the impugned SCN that the SCN is bereft of any material particulars. It neither specifies the fraud alleged to have been committed by the petitioner nor any alleged wilful misstatement made by the petitioner. The SCN also did not mention any facts that were allegedly suppressed by the petitioner.
(2) Although, the petitioner was granted seven working days to respond to the SCN, the Proper Officer did not wait for the said period to expire and the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration was passed four days later.
(3) The only reasons stated in the impugned order are that the petitioner’s response to the query was not proper; no documentary evidence had been produced by the taxpayer; and none had appeared for personal hearing. The impugnedorder neither refers to any fraud  that was found to have been committed by the petitioner nor mentions any misstatement allegedly made by the petitioner.
(4) It is also relevant to note that although the SCN did not propose the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect yet the petitioner’s GST registration has been cancelled with effect from 05.03.2018, that is, the date on which the said registration was granted.

CASE LAW: VAB APPAREL LLP Vs COMMISSIONER, DELHI GST AND ORS. (W.P.(C) 13642/2023 dated 10-11-2023 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court)

ISSUE : Whether the GST registration be cancelled, without specifying the reason and explanation in the SCN?

HELD: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under:
(1) The reason, which the respondents (Revenue) seek to rely on, is also cryptic. There is no explanation as to why the buyers and suppliers have been found to be suspicious. Merely because the petitioner’s shop was found closed, absent anything more, is not a ground for cancellation of petitioner’s GST registration.