Stay Protected: Article 19(1)(g) Your Constitutional Shield Against Arbitrary GST Registration Cancellations

The right to conduct business is not merely a statutory privilege - it is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. Article 19(1)(g) guarantees every citizen the right "to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business". Any restriction on this right must withstand the constitutional test of reasonableness under Article 19(6).

In recent years, a disturbing trend has emerged: cancellation of GST registrations by tax authorities on grounds often found to be arbitrary, disproportionate, or procedurally flawed. The consequences are devastating - effectively shutting down a business, destroying livelihoods, and eroding public trust in the system.

Indian High Courts have repeatedly stepped in to protect taxpayers, emphasising that GST law cannot be enforced in a manner that annihilates this constitutional guarantee. Several recent judgments serve as crucial precedents:

1. A.M. Enterprises v. State of Himachal Pradesh

(2024) 22 CENTAX 573 - Himachal Pradesh High Court

The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled citing a violation of Rule 86B of the CGST Rules. The Court held that such a drastic measure was disproportionate to the alleged infraction. Cancellation crippled the petitioner's business, thereby violating Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 19(1)(g), as well as Article 300A (right to property). The decision underscores that economic penalties must be proportionate to the misconduct alleged.

2. Maharashtra Scrap v. State of Maharashtra

(2024) 24 CENTAX 128 - Bombay High Court

Here, the GST registration was cancelled on allegations of fraud, but the revenue authorities failed to provide adequate details or supporting circumstances. The Court found this to be a violation of the principles of natural justice and an infringement of Article 19(1)(g). The absence of transparency rendered the cancellation unsustainable in law.

3. Rooban Agencies v. State of Tamil Nadu

(2024) 18 CENTAX 211 - Madras High Court

The assessee was unaware of the Show Cause Notice and consequently failed to participate in the enquiry. The Court observed that cancellation of registration is akin to a capital punishment for small-scale traders. Such extreme consequences demand the highest procedural safeguards, failing which the order must be quashed.

4. TVL. Suguna Cutpiece Center v. Appellate Authority

(2022) 61 GSTL 515 - Madras High Court

This landmark judgment reiterated that GST enactments cannot be interpreted to deny a citizen's right to trade and commerce. The Court emphasised that legislative provisions must be applied in a manner consistent with constitutional rights, and not as a tool for economic strangulation.

5. S.S. Enterprises v. State of Uttar Pradesh

(2024) 20 CENTAX 112 - Allahabad High Court

The Court ruled that any order cancelling GST registration must be a reasoned, speaking order adhering to natural justice. Cancellation has severe consequences for the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g), and arbitrary orders cannot stand judicial scrutiny.

Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Case Law

1. Proportionality - Administrative action must bear a reasonable nexus to the alleged violation. Extreme measures like cancellation should be reserved for grave and proven offences.
2. Natural Justice - Taxpayers must be given clear notice, sufficient time to respond, and access to evidence relied upon by the department.
3. Constitutional Harmony - GST provisions must be interpreted in line with the constitutional guarantee of trade and business freedom.
4. Reasoned Orders - Orders must disclose reasoning; mechanical or template cancellations are legally untenable.
5. Judicial Oversight - High Courts will not hesitate to strike down cancellations that are arbitrary, disproportionate, or procedurally flawed.

Conclusion

The GST regime was introduced to simplify taxation and promote compliance, not to arm authorities with unchecked powers to shut down businesses. Taxpayers must remember that the Constitution stands as their ultimate safeguard. Article 19(1)(g) is not a mere paper provision - it is a living guarantee that any restriction on your right to trade must be reasonable, justified, and procedurally fair.

In the face of an arbitrary GST registration cancellation, the judiciary has shown a consistent willingness to protect this right. The message is clear: The State's tax enforcement powers stop where fundamental rights begin.