Case Summary
Court: Gauhati High Court
Case No.: WP(C)/3754/2025
Date of Judgment: 27.06.2025
Parties: Munni Char v. Union of India & Ors.
Category: GST Registration Cancellation – Revocation/Restoration
Relevant Sections: Section 29(2)(c), Section 73(10), Section 44 of CGST/SGST Act, 2017; Rule 22(4) of CGST Rules, 2017
Facts (Paras 2–6)
The petitioner, a sole proprietor registered under GST, faced cancellation of her registration due to non-filing of returns for six months. A show cause notice was issued, but no date for personal hearing was specified. Being from a remote area with poor internet access and no professional guidance, she could not respond in time. Her registration was cancelled on 17.05.2024. Subsequently, she cleared all pending returns with taxes, late fees, and interest up to March 2024. However, her application for revocation was blocked as the statutory timeline of 270 days had lapsed. Hence, she approached the High Court.
Dispute (Paras 7–9)
The crux was whether the petitioner, despite delay, could seek restoration of GST registration under the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, since she had already complied with tax, interest, and late fee obligations.
Observations (Paras 10–12)
The Court noted that Rule 22(4) proviso provides relief if the assessee files all pending returns and pays dues. Cancellation of registration has serious civil consequences and should not be applied rigidly. Reliance was placed on an earlier case (Sanjoy Nath v. Union of India, WP(C)/6366/2023) where similar relief was granted. The Court emphasized that the petitioner, having regularized dues, was entitled to restoration consideration.
Judgment (Paras 13–15)
The writ was disposed of with directions:
-
The petitioner must approach the competent authority within two months with a restoration application.
-
If she complies with Rule 22(4) proviso, the authority must restore her GST registration expeditiously.
-
The computation of limitation under Section 73(10) will run from this judgment date, except for FY 2024–25 which remains governed by Section 44.
-
The petitioner remains liable to pay arrears, interest, penalty, and late fees.
Thus, while upholding statutory compliance, the Court balanced equity by granting a second chance for restoration.
Table of Earlier Case Referred
| Case | Court | Citation / Case No. | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sanjoy Nath v. Union of India | Gauhati HC | WP(C)/6366/2023, Order dated 11.10.2023 | Registration cancellation can be revoked where dues and returns are cleared, as per Rule 22(4) proviso. |
Between Fine Lines
For businesses in remote areas or with procedural delays, this ruling clarifies that GST registration cancellation is not final if dues are cleared. Rule 22(4) provides a substantive remedy, and Courts are willing to relax strict timelines where civil consequences are harsh, provided compliance is complete.
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.”
 of CGST Rules, 2017.){kind=link}