ORDER

Heard Mr. S S Gupta, 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 execution of works contract services in the name and style of ‘Birinchi Kumar Gogoi’ 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.18AHSPG7981R2Z0.

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 17.12.2024 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 17.12.2024.

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 judgment of Motaleb Bhuyan (Supra) can be passed in the instant proceedings. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:

(i). The order of cancellation of registration dated 17.04.2025 is set aside and quashed.

(ii). The petitioner herein is directed to file the returns for the period from the date the petitioner had failed to furnish returns till date, within 30 days from the date of the instant order.

(iii). The period as stipulated in Section 73(10) of the CGST Act of 2017 shall be computed from the date of the instant judgment, except for the financial year 2025-26, which shall be as per Section 44 of the CGST Act of 2017.

(iv). The petitioner herein also shall be liable to make payment of the arrears i.e. tax, penalty, interest and late fees.

8. With the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed o