##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/8

GAHC040006772026

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

(ITANAGAR BENCH)

Case No. : WP(C)/212/2026

Smti Bina Taipodia

Wife of Iluk Buchi,

resident of Siloni village,

Likabali,

PO Likabali,

PS Nari,

Lower Siang District,

Arunachal Pradesh.

VERSUS

The Union of India and 2 Ors

represented by the Secretary,

govt of India,

Ministry of Finance,

Department of Revenue,

North Block,

New Delhi

110001

2:The Principal of Commissioner

Age: 0

Occupation :

CGST and SGST

Excise and Customs

Arunachal Pradesh.

3:The Superintendent

Age: 0

Occupation :

CGST and SGST Department

Pasighat Range

Arunachal Pradesh

Page No.# 2/8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Jambey Tsering Kee, Tsering Gyatso,Dejum Tally,Tayom

Gamoh,Techi Topu

Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, SC Central Excise and Customs,Tania Kipa,DSGI

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

ORDER

Date : 18-05-2026

Heard Mr. T. Gyatso, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.

Kato, learned Dy.S.G.I. for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. C. Kayal, learned

Senior Counsel/Standing Counsel for the CGST appearing for respondent Nos. 2

and 3.

2. Having considered that this Court has disposed of similar matters and as

agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is

disposed of at the motion stage itself.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the

Superintendent, CGST and SGST Department, Pasighat Range, Arunachal

Pradesh, whereby the GST Registration bearing GSTIN/UIN: 12CBPPT8479Q1ZC

of the petitioner has been cancelled on account of failure to submit returns.

4. The petitioner has been carrying on business through its proprietorship firm

under the name of M/s Luknu Buchi Enterprises, based at Likabali, Lower

Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh, registered under the Goods and Services Tax

Act, 2017and having GST Registration bearing GSTIN/UIN: 12CBPPT8479Q1ZC.

5. Having found that the petitioner had failed to file the requisite returns, a

Show Cause Notice dated 07.10.2024 was issued by the respondent authority

Page No.# 3/8

directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the GSTR-3B returns had not

been filed, for which the GST Registration was liable to be cancelled. Thereafter,

vide the impugned order dated 29.05.2025, the GST Registration of the

petitioner was cancelled as the petitioner had failed to reply to the said Show

Cause Notice.

6. Mr. Gyatso, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner

had not received the Show Cause Notice dated 07.10.2024, for which reason the

petitioner could not file a reply thereto. He submits that the petitioner had no

intention either to evade payment of tax or to violate the provisions of the GST

Act, 2017 and that it was only due to health problems that the petitioner could

not file the returns and pay the requisite tax on time. Be that as it may, the

petitioner has paid the requisite tax on 23.04.2026. However, since there was

delay in filing the application, the petitioner’s GST Registration could not be

restored.

7. Mr. Gyatso, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the order

dated 19.03.2026 passed by this Court in WP(C)/108/2026 (Dug Rade vs.

Union of India and Others) submits that a similar matter has already been

disposed of by this Court and therefore, prays for similar relief.

8. Mr. M. Kato, learned Dy. S.G.I. and Mr. S. C. Kayal, learned Senior

Counsel/Standing Counsel for the CGST, fairly submit that the aforesaid order, in

fact, covers the case of the petitioner. Therefore, they submit that the writ

petition may be disposed of by granting similar relief to the petitioner.

9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the

parties and upon perusal of the order dated 19.03.2026 passed in the case of

Dug Rade (supra), wherein a similar issue as involved in the instant case was

Page No.# 4/8

considered and disposed of, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition

as it appears that the case reli