##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010061142026

2026:GAU-AS:4811

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/1744/2026

SRI BIPLOB MORAN SON OF BIJU MORAN, RESIDENT OF HEBEDA GAON, TENGAPANI GAON, PO. AND PS.-MAKUM,

DISTRICT-TINSUKIA, ASSAM-786170

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS.

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, I4INISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROOM NO.664, NORTH BLOCK, NEWDELHI-110001 2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

5TH FLOOR GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA

GUWAHATI-781001.

3:THE JURISDICTION OFFICER/SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX

TINSUKIA RANGE II TINSUKIA DIVISION

ASSAM-786125

Page No.# 2/4

B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Mishra

Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. SC Keyal

Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 01.04.2026

Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment

Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced

JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Mr. RS Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. SC Keyal, the learned counsel who appears on

behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3.

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the cancellation of its registration in terms with Section 29 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST Act of 2017’). The petitioner, thereupon, filed an application seeking revocation of the cancellation of the registration, however the same could not be filed as the time limit prescribed for filing of revocation application had elapsed and the reason shown in the screen was “Timeline of 270 days from the

Page No.# 3/4

date of cancellation order provided to taxpayer to file Application for Revocation of Cancellation is expired”. It is under such circumstances the petitioner has,

therefore, approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

3. The materials on record reveal that the petitioner herein is engaged in the business of providing Light Motor Vehicles on hire in the name and style of ‘Biplob Moran’ and is a registered Assessee under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘CGST Act of 2017’)/Assam Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the AGST Act of 2017). The petitioner has obtained a registration under the CGST Act of 2017 and was provided with the Unique ID

bearing GST Registration No.18GCOPM2152R1ZQ.

4. On account of non-submission of the returns, which is required in terms with Section 39 of the CGST Act of 2017 (which the petitioner does not deny in the instant petition), a show cause notice was issued on 12.02.2025 asking the petitioner as to why his registration should not be cancelled. In addition to that, it was also mentioned that his registration shall stand suspended from

24.03.2025.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not well conversant with the provisions of GST online portal and at that relevant point of time there was a miscommunication between the petitioner and his tax consultant and as such there was default in filing the return in time and accordingly the reply to the show cause could not be filed within the stipulated period. Consequently, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the

petitioner did not file the due returns within the timeline of 270 days.

6. The record also reveals that the petitioner herein had sought for revocation of the cancellation of the registration by filing an application, which was,

Page No.# 4/4

however, denied. In this regard, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that the issue involved in the instant proceedings is no longer res integra, taking into account that this Court had already dealt with similar issues in the case of Motaleb Bhuyan Vs. The State Of Assam And Ors, reported in 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 1429.

7. It