SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1295

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Dipjyoti Borah Son Of Late Rajen Borah - Appellant 
Vs.
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondent 
WP(C) No. 3926 Of 2025
Decided On : 18-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A K Gupta, Mr. R S Mishra
For the Respondent: SC, Finance And Taxation

If a taxpayer is ready to comply with GST filing requirements after cancellation for non-filing, the empowered officer may restore their registration under the CGST Rules.

Headnote:(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 29(2)(c) - Cancellation of GST registration - The petitioner, a sole proprietor, faced GST registration cancellation due to non-filing of returns for over six months, challenging the ex-parte decision. The court found that if the petitioner complies with requirements, the officer may restore the registration. (Paras 8, 11, 12)

(B) Proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of CGST Rules, 2017 - Restoration of registration - The court held that failure to file returns does not preclude restoration if the taxpayer is willing to comply with the rules and pay dues. (Paras 9, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner operates a proprietorship business and failed to file GST returns for six months due to difficulties caused by the pandemic, resulting in the cancellation of GST registration. It was claimed that all dues were settled after recovery.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petitioner is entitled to seek revocation of GST cancellation if all pending returns are filed and dues paid, with authority given to the officer to restore registration.

Issues: The main issues included compliance with GST procedures and the implications of non-filing returns on registration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that procedural provisions allow for restoration of registration where compliance is shown, emphasizing the importance of allowing taxpayers to rectify defaults in a timely manner.

Result: Writ petition disposed of favorably, allowing petitioner to seek registration restoration.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's business and gst registration details. (Para 2 , 4 , 6)
2. reasons for late submission of gst returns. (Para 3 , 5 , 7)
3. procedure and provisions for gst registration cancellation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. order for restoration process and obligations of the petitioner. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

ORDER :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

Heard Shri R. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Finance & Taxation for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been carrying out his proprietorship business under the name & style, “Shri Dipjyoti Borah” as the sole proprietor. He is an Assesee registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017/Assam Goods and Services Tax (AGST) Act, 2017 bearing registration No. 18AOAPB8032R1ZP. On the reason of non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice bearing reference No.ZA180522002196V dated 04.05.2022 asking him to furnish reply to the aforesaid notice within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of service of notice and it was mentioned in the aforesaid show cause notice that if the petitioner fails to furnish a reply within the stipulated date or fails to appear for personal hearing on the appointed date and time, the case will be decided ex-parte on the basis of the available records and on merits. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 06.06.20223 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Guwahati-D-S whereby the petitioner’s GST registration has been cancelled for not furnishing returns for a continuous period of 6 (six) or more months.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to non-conversant of online procedure and also for the loss sustained during Covid-19, he could not visit the GST portal and accordingly could not submit any reply to the said show cause notice in time. It is further contended that when the petitioner came across the said notice, the time for filing reply and attending the hearing was already over and order had also been uploaded in the portal.

4. The petitioner further contends that after recovering from impact of Covid-19, he updated all his pending returns up to the month of June, 2022 as allowed by the GST portal and while updating his returns, the petitioner has also discharged all his GST dues along with his late fees and interest.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner tried to file the necessary application seeking revocation of GST cancellation, however, the same could not be filed as the time limit prescribed for filing of revocation application was elapsed and a message was displayed in the screen “timeline of 270 days from the date of cancellation order provided to taxpayer to file application for revocation of cancellation is expired.”

6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

7. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with all the formalities required as per proviso to sub-

rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017.

8. As per Section 29 (2)(c), an officer, duly empowered, may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he deems fit, where any registered person, has not furnished returns for a continuous period of 6 (six) months. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 has laid down the procedure for cancellation of the registration. The said Rule is extracted herein below:

“Rule 22 : Cancellation of Registration (1) Where the proper officer has reasons to believe that the registration of a person is liable to be cancelled under Section 29 , he shall issue a notice to such person in FORM GST REG-17, requiring him to show cause, within a period of seven working days from the date of the service of such notice, as to why his registration shall not be cancelled.

(2) The reply to the show c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top