The Guwahati High Court while quashing the GST Cancellation Order, directed the Goods and Service Tax Department to disclose outstanding dues.
The bench of Justice Robin Phukan has relied on the judgement in the case of Yassung Yangfo vs the Union of India, the court interfered with the GST cancellation order and also directed the Superintendent, Central Goods and Services Tax, Bhalukpung Range to intimate the petitioner therein the total outstanding statutory dues, if any, standing in the name of the petitioner till the date of cancellation of the GST registration.
The petitioner has been carrying on business of work contract services under the name and style of M/s FRAA TAKA INFRATECH and on account of his illness, he could not file his GST returns for a continuous period of more than six months, and thereafter, the department had issued a show cause notice to him and his GST registration was cancelled.
The petitioner came to know about cancellation of his GST registration only when he resumed his business work on the later part of March, 2025, and thereafter, he immediately filed his pending GST returns till May, 2024 i.e. the month in which his registration was cancelled and also paid all the taxes and late fines/penalties payable thereon, however, he was not permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation of his registration under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 23(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as the limitation period including the extended period had already expired.
The petitioner had preferred one appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107(1) of the Act praying for setting aside the impugned order, but the same was also dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation.
The court directed the Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax to intimate the petitioner if any statutory dues are pending and if any such dues are pending, then upon payment of the said dues, the department will pass appropriate order to restore the GST registration of the petitioner within period of two weeks.
Case Details
Case Title: Jenia Namchoom Versus UOI
Case No.: Case No. : WP(C)/221/2025
Date: 27.05.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Shantanu Kumar Sarma, Eddie Payeng
Counsel For Respondent: Marto Kato, DSGI,M K Boro
Read More: Bribery Allegations in GST Registration Spark FM Sitharaman’s Response, CBIC Issues Clarification
