COURT NO.1

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

Record of Proceedings

Page-14 of 3

WP(C) No. 34 of 2024

M/S A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LTD. PETITIONER (S)

VERSUS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS RESPONDENT (S)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Puneet Agarwal, (through V.C.), Mr.

Yuvraj Singh and Mr. Passang Tshering

Bhutia, Advocates.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sangita Pradhan, Deputy Solicitor General

of India with Ms. Natasha Pradhan and Ms.

Sittal Balmiki, Advocates.

Date: 23/02/2026

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, CHIEF JUSTICE

…

The Petitioner, M/s A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd., was registered under the

CGST Act, 2017. The said registration was cancelled by an order dated

30.10.2023. The cancellation was preceded by a show-cause notice dated

26.09.2023. In the show-cause notice, it was stated that upon inspection, the

business entity was found to be non-existent at the declared place of business

and that no business activities were being carried out from the said premises.

It appears that an email-reply was submitted by the Petitioner. It is

appropriate to refer to the brief reply submitted by the Petitioner, which is as

follows: -

“…….

We, M/s A2Z Infra Engineering Limited (‘the Company’ or ‘We’

or ‘Us’) are in receipt of the captioned SCN dated August 24,

2023 regarding which reply is required to be furnished to the

office of your good self by September 30, 2023. Copy of SCN

dated September 26, 2023. In this regard, we wish to submit

that The Company has a centralized accounting system, and

there are no accounts-related employees stationed in Sikkim.

Due to a recent cloud burst in Sikkim, none of the employees

were able to travel to the state. Therefore, it is requested to

the office of your goodself to grant us extension of another 20

days and grant us the opportunity to present our case before

the office of your goodself. We request the office of your

goodself to accept the reply of the Company and grant us the

personal hearing before taking any decision in this matter.

Thanking you in anticipation.

……….”

COURT NO.1

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

Record of Proceedings

Page-15 of 3

In fact, the Petitioner had also sought an opportunity of personal hearing

and requested an extension of time.

However, as seen from the final order impugned before this Court

cancelling the registration, no reasons have been assigned for such cancellation.

There is no reference to the reply submitted by the Petitioner or to the request

for extension of time.

In such circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and

requires reconsideration after properly adverting to the reasons stated by the

Petitioner. The explanation offered by the Petitioner ought to have been taken

into consideration.

The Petitioner further submits that valid reasons were explained for their

absence from the declared place of business and several documents have been

produced before this Court to establish that business activities were indeed being

carried out. It is also submitted that the Petitioner has subsequently obtained

fresh registration.

In such circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order has to be

revisited after giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner will

file an application for cancellation of the earlier registration in view of the

subsequent registration. If that be so, the same shall also be considered before

deciding upon the cancellation of registration pursuant to the show-cause notice

dated 26.09.2023.

This writ petition being, WP(C) No. 34 of 2024 , stands disposed of

accordingly.

Chief Justice

avi