Case Reference
Kamal Lochan Borah v. Union of India & Ors.
Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4062/2025
Judgment Date: 25.07.2025
Category: GST Registration – Cancellation & Restoration
Relevant Provisions: Section 29(2)(c), Section 73(10), Section 44 of CGST Act, 2017; Rule 22(4) of CGST Rules, 2017
Facts (Paras 2–5)
The petitioner, a sole proprietor under the name Borah Brothers, was registered under CGST/AGST. For failure to file GST returns for six months, a show cause notice dated 28.12.2020 was issued. However, no hearing date was provided. An ex parte order dated 08.01.2021 cancelled his registration under Section 29(2)(c). The petitioner attributed non-filing to the Covid-19 pandemic. After recovery, he filed all pending returns till January 2021 and cleared tax dues, interest, and late fees. His application for revocation of cancellation was rejected as time-barred (270 days lapse). Hence, he approached the High Court.
Questions for Consideration
-
Whether the cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) can be restored when the taxpayer subsequently files pending returns and clears dues?
-
Whether the petitioner can seek relief despite missing the 270-day revocation period?
Observations (Paras 8–12)
The Court noted that under Section 29(2)(c) read with Rule 22, cancellation is valid where returns remain unfurnished for six months. However, the proviso to Rule 22(4) allows the proper officer to drop cancellation proceedings if pending returns are filed and dues, with late fee and interest, are cleared. The Court emphasized that cancellation entails serious civil consequences, thus a liberal construction favoring compliance should apply. Reference was made to Sanjoy Nath v. Union of India (WP(C) 6366/2023, decided on 11.10.2023), where similar relief was granted.
Judgement (Paras 12–15)
The writ petition was disposed of with directions:
-
The petitioner may approach the concerned authority within two months.
-
Upon filing of pending returns and full payment of tax, interest, and late fees as per Rule 22(4), the authority shall consider restoration of registration in Form GST REG-20.
-
The time limit under Section 73(10) will be computed from the date of this order (except FY 2024-25, governed by Section 44).
-
Petitioner remains liable for arrears of tax, penalty, interest, and late fees.
Thus, the Court safeguarded substantive compliance over technical lapse in revocation timeline.
Table of Cases Referred
| Case | Court & Petition | Ratio / Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Sanjoy Nath v. Union of India & Ors. | Gauhati HC, WP(C) 6366/2023 (Order dated 11.10.2023) | Held that restoration of GST registration is permissible if taxpayer complies with Rule 22(4) by filing returns and paying dues, despite earlier cancellation. |
Between Fine Lines
For businesses, this judgment means GST registration cancellations are not the end of the road. If you clear pending returns and dues, courts may direct authorities to restore registration, even if revocation timelines lapse. It underscores that compliance and revenue protection prevail over rigid procedural defaults.
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.”
