Case Summary
Case Title: Mokibur Rahman v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Gauhati High Court
Petition No.: WP(C)/4253/2025
Date of Judgment: 01.08.2025
Category: Registration – Cancellation and Revocation
Relevant Sections: Section 29(2)(c), Section 73(10), Section 44 of CGST/SGST Act; Rule 22 of CGST Rules, 2017
Facts (Paras 2–5)
The petitioner, a proprietor of M/s Real Enterprise, registered under the CGST/AGST Act, failed to file returns for over six months. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 08.08.2023 was issued, followed by cancellation of registration on 14.09.2023. The petitioner, unfamiliar with online procedures, failed to respond in time. Later, he filed all pending returns up to September 2023, clearing tax dues, late fees, and interest. However, his revocation application was time-barred beyond 270 days, and his appeal was dismissed on 24.07.2025. Hence, he approached the High Court.
Questions for Determination
-
Whether cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) can be sustained despite subsequent compliance by the assessee.
-
Whether Rule 22(4) proviso mandates restoration when pending returns and dues are furnished.
Observations (Paras 9–13)
The Court observed that Section 29(2)(c) empowers cancellation if returns are not furnished for six months, while Rule 22 prescribes the procedure. Importantly, the proviso to Rule 22(4) allows dropping of proceedings if the assessee clears pending returns, tax, interest, and late fee. The Court referred to its earlier ruling in Sanjoy Nath v. Union of India (WP(C)/6366/2023, order dated 11.10.2023), where similar relief was granted. Cancellation of registration, being a measure with serious civil consequences, requires authorities to adopt a liberal approach where compliance is ultimately achieved.
Judgment (Paras 14–17)
The Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to approach the GST authority within two months. If he files the application and fulfills requirements under Rule 22(4) proviso, the authority must restore registration expeditiously. The limitation period under Section 73(10) would run from this order (except FY 2024–25 governed by Section 44). The Court clarified that arrears including tax, penalty, interest, and late fee must be paid. Relief was granted even though the appellate order was not separately challenged, emphasizing interest of justice.
Table of Cases Referred
| Case | Citation/Ref | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Sanjoy Nath v. Union of India & Ors. | WP(C)/6366/2023, Gauhati HC, Order dated 11.10.2023 | Court held that cancellation of GST registration must be reconsidered if pending returns and dues are cleared, applying Rule 22(4) proviso. |
Between Fine Lines
This ruling underscores that GST registration cancellation is not the end of the road for businesses. If all pending returns, taxes, interest, and late fees are discharged, authorities must consider restoring registration under Rule 22(4) proviso. For trade and industry, it highlights that procedural lapses like delayed filing, if rectified, should not permanently disrupt business continuity.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
 proviso.){kind=link}