The Gauhati High Court has directed the restoration of a construction business’s GST registration, subject to payment of outstanding statutory dues, penalties and fines, after the taxpayer was unable to seek revocation through the GST portal because the prescribed time limits had expired.
The bench of Justice Nelson Sailo disposed of the petition on October 9, 2026, directing the tax authorities to communicate the amounts payable and granting the taxpayer 21 days from that communication to clear the dues. Restoration will follow upon proof of payment within the stipulated period.
The petitioner/assessee operates a construction work agency under the trade name M/s Sml Builders and Company, with its principal place of business at Chimpu, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh. Her business had been registered under the GST framework with effect from September 19, 2023.
According to the petitioner, financial difficulties and the non-operation of her business prevented her from running it properly, resulting in a failure to file GST returns.
On October 15, 2025, a system-generated show-cause notice was issued through the GST portal for failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. The notice required her to respond within 30 days from its service and appear before the jurisdictional officer on November 12, 2025. Her GST registration was suspended with immediate effect in the meantime.
The petitioner stated that she lacked the technical knowledge to file GST returns herself and had previously relied on GST agents or chartered accountants. She also failed to check the GST portal and consequently did not take the necessary steps to address the default.
Her registration was subsequently cancelled with effect from October 15, 2025. The cancellation order identified in the court’s operative directions was dated November 24, 2025.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that she had attempted to seek revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
However, counsel stated that the 90-day period, as well as the additional period of 180 days referred to in the order, had expired. Consequently, she could not submit a revocation application through the online portal.
Counsel further submitted that the three-month limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107(1) had also elapsed.
Faced with these procedural barriers, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking an opportunity to secure restoration of her registration.
In support of the request, the petitioner relied on the High Court’s order dated August 11, 2026, in Gangte Togung v. The Union of India and two others.
Counsel submitted that, in that matter, the court had permitted a similarly situated taxpayer to pay the penalties and fines found payable and had directed the authorities to revoke the cancellation of GST registration. The petitioner sought comparable relief.
Counsel appearing for the central GST authorities submitted that a similar order could be passed in the present case, subject to the petitioner paying the penalties and fines found due.
The High Court directed the Superintendent of Central Goods and Services Tax, Itanagar Range, to intimate the petitioner about any outstanding statutory dues relating to her business up to the date of cancellation.
The communication must also cover any penalties or fines found payable as on the date of restoration, enabling the petitioner to discharge the entire statutory liability under the CGST Act.
The petitioner must pay those amounts within 21 days from the date of intimation.
Upon production of proof that payment has been made within the permitted period, the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Itanagar, must pass appropriate orders revoking the cancellation order dated November 24, 2025, and restoring the registration.
The order provides a route to restoration for the petitioner despite the expiry of the time limits described in her submissions. The relief is expressly conditional on payment of the dues communicated by the department within the court-prescribed period.
The court did not waive the taxpayer’s statutory liabilities or declare the cancellation unlawful. It disposed of the petition at the motion stage with the parties’ consent, granting relief in light of the earlier comparable order and the submissions of the GST authorities.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: No Fresh GST Appeal Pre-Deposit Required When Earlier Payment Covers Reduced Tax Demand: GSTAT
