Heard Mr. R. S. Mishra and Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsels for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. T. Kipa, learned Standing Counsel, Central Excise and Customs, for the respondents.

Being aggrieved by the cancellation of the GST registration bearing No. 12AAHPA4001C1ZY of the petitioner by an order No. ZA120424001001R, dated 20.04.2024, passed by the Superintendent, Goods and Service Tax, Bhalukpong Division, this writ petition has been filed.

As a similar issue has already been decided by this Court and as agreed to by the learned counsels for the parties, this writ petition is considered and disposed of at the motion stage itself.

The petitioner is engaged in the business of execution of Works Contract Services under the name and style of M/s KCA Infrastructure, a proprietorship firm having its registered office at Patel Engineering Ltd., Kimi, West Kameng, Arunachal Pradesh and is an assessee duly registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and The Arunachal Pradesh Goods & Services Tax, 2017.

It is the contention of the petitioner that due to non-filing of GST return for a continuous period of 6 (six) months, on account of the fault of his Tax Consultant, he was served with a Show-Cause Notice dated 07.12.2023, whereby the petitioner was asked to furnish a reply within 30 days and to appear on 03.01.2024, failing which the matter would be decided ex-parte. While issuing the Show-Cause Notice, the GST registration of the petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 07.12.2023 and subsequently, on 20.04.2024, the GST registration was cancelled without assigning any reason.

Mr. R. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has defaulted due to the negligence on the part of the Tax Consultant who had never informed about the non-compliance of the provisions of CGST/AGST Act. He submits that the petitioner again tried to file the necessary application seeking revocation of GST cancellation, however same could not be filed as the time limit prescribed for filing of application for revocation had elapsed. He submits that the petitioner has updated his GST returns up to April, 2024.

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with all the formalities as per proviso to Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rule, 2017.

By relying on the judgment and order, dated 17.10.2025, passed in the case of Dhirghat Hardware Stores & Anr. Vs. Union of India & 3 Ors., in WP(C) No. 5944/2025, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submits that this Court had allowed the writ petition in a similar matter and therefore, prays for the grant of similar relief to the present petitioner.

Mr. T. Kipa, learned Standing Counsel, Central Excise and Customs, fairly submits that the case of Dhirghat Hardware Stores (supra), as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been rendered on similar facts and law, which would cover the case of the present petitioner.

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the judgment and order dated 17.10.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dhirghat Hardware Stores (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:

“…8. As per Section 29(2)(c) of the Act, 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.

9. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 being the bone of contention, 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