GST registration cancellation set aside with direction to restore upon compliance with pending returns and tax dues

Case Summary

Court: Gauhati High Court
Case No.: WP(C)/3572/2025
Petitioner: Smt. Jinny Daimary
Respondents: State of Assam & Ors.
Category: Cancellation/Revocation of GST Registration
Date of Judgment: 24.07.2025
Relevant Sections: Section 29(2)(c), Section 73(10), Section 44 of CGST/AGST Act, 2017; Rule 22(4) of CGST Rules, 2017

Facts (Paras 2–6)

The petitioner, a sole proprietor running M/s J.P. Enterprise, was registered under GST. Her registration was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Nalbari, through an order dated 02.06.2023 on the ground of non-filing of GST returns for more than six months. She attributed her default to lack of familiarity with the online portal and disruption caused by a fire accident in her business premises. Subsequently, she filed all pending returns up to March 2023 and cleared tax dues with interest and late fees. However, her application for revocation of cancellation was barred as the 270-day timeline had expired.

Questions before the Court (Paras 6–8)

The issue before the Court was whether the cancellation of GST registration should be sustained despite the petitioner’s compliance with pending returns and payment of dues, given the lapse of statutory time for filing revocation application.

Observations (Paras 8–11)

The Court noted Section 29(2)(c) empowers cancellation for non-filing of returns and Rule 22 of CGST Rules prescribes the procedure. Importantly, the proviso to Rule 22(4) permits dropping of cancellation proceedings if the taxpayer furnishes pending returns and pays dues with interest and late fees. Cancellation of registration entails serious civil consequences, affecting the right to carry on business. The Court also referred to similar orders in Sanjoy Nath v. Union of India (WP(C) 6366/2023, 11.10.2023) and Dipjyoti Borah v. State of Assam (WP(C) 3926/2025, 18.07.2025), where restoration was allowed under similar circumstances.

Judgment (Paras 11–15)

The Court held that if the petitioner approaches the concerned authority within two months, furnishes all pending returns, and clears all dues with interest and late fees, the authority must consider restoration of GST registration. The process should be completed within 60 days of submission. For limitation under Section 73(10), computation would begin from the date of this order. The petitioner would remain liable for arrears, tax, interest, penalty, and late fees.

Outcome: Writ petition disposed of with direction for restoration upon compliance.

Table of Cases Referred

Between Fine Lines

This judgment reinforces that GST registration, being vital for business survival, cannot be denied solely on technical grounds if the taxpayer clears pending obligations. Businesses facing cancellation for non-filing can seek restoration by demonstrating bona fide compliance with returns, dues, and interest—even beyond the statutory revocation period.

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.”