##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010083082026

2026:GAU-AS:5990

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/2271/2026

ANTAREEP DUTTA

SON OF GIRIN DUTTA, RESIDENT OF BORPATHAR DIGHOLA GAON, P.O.

AND P.S.- BARBARUAH, DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM- 786008

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,,

MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROOM NO. 66A,

NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 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

DIBRUGARH RANGE-I

C.R. BUILDING

MILAN NAGAR

F LANE

P.O.- C.R. BUILDING

DIBRUGARH

ASSAM- 78600

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R S MISHRA, MS. M DEY,MS B SARMA

Page No.# 2/4

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, GST

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

ORDER

30.04.2026

Heard Mr. R S Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M Das,

learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. K Jain, learned counsel for 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 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 ‘M/s Antareep Dutta’

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.18FSCPD4754F1ZS.

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 13.08.2024 asking the petitioner as to why his

Page No.# 3/4

registration should not be cancelled. In addition to that, it was also mentioned that his

registration shall stand suspended from 13.08.2024.

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, 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 and in the case of Sri

Biplob Moran -Vs- Union of India and Ors. in WP(C) No. 1744/2026

7. It is the opinion of this Court that similar directions which have been passed at

paragraph No.50 of the judg