Gauhati HC Allows Taxpayer to Seek GST Registration Restoration After Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns

The Gauhati High Court has permitted a taxpayer to approach the GST authorities for restoration of her cancelled registration after she cleared all pending dues and filed overdue returns. The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that cancellation of GST registration carries serious civil consequences and authorities may consider revocation if statutory conditions are satisfied. The petitioner is a registered assessee under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 and the Assam Goods and Services Tax (AGST) Act, 2017. Her GST registration was cancelled by the Superintendent, CGST, Dibrugarh-I Range, through an order dated November 11, 2024, on the ground that she had failed to file GST returns for a continuous period of six months. A show cause notice dated October 7, 2024, was issued under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, calling upon her to explain why her registration should not be cancelled. The notice provided 30 days to respond and warned that the matter could be decided ex parte in case of non-response. According to the petitioner, due to miscommunication with her tax consultant, she remained unaware of the show cause notice and therefore could not file a reply within the stipulated time. By the time she discovered the notice, the cancellation order had already been uploaded on the GST portal. The petitioner submitted before the Court that she had since updated all pending GST returns up to November 2024 and discharged her entire tax liability, including applicable interest and late fees, as permitted by the GST portal. However, when she attempted to file an application for revocation of cancellation, the system displayed a message stating that the prescribed timeline of 270 days from the date of the cancellation order for filing a revocation application had expired. Aggrieved by her inability to seek restoration through the statutory portal mechanism, she approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court examined Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, which empowers a proper officer to cancel the registration of a person who fails to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. It also considered Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, particularly the proviso to sub-rule (4), which provides that where a person, instead of replying to the show cause notice, furnishes all pending returns and makes full payment of tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in Form GST REG-20. The petitioner relied upon a prior order of the Gauhati High Court in Sanjoy Nath vs. The Union of India & Ors. (WP(C) No. 6366/2023), where similar relief had been granted. Justice Medhi noted that cancellation of GST registration entails serious civil consequences for a business entity. The Court observed that the proviso to Rule 22(4) clearly permits the authorities to drop cancellation proceedings if the taxpayer furnishes pending returns and clears dues with interest and late fees. Taking into account that the petitioner had already filed the pending returns and paid the dues, the Court held that if she approaches the concerned authority and complies with the requirements under the proviso to Rule 22(4), the authority may consider dropping the proceedings and restoring the registration in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall approach the concerned GST authority within two months seeking restoration of her GST registration. If she submits the application and fulfills all statutory requirements, the authority shall consider her request and take necessary steps for restoration as expeditiously as possible. The Court further clarified that the limitation period under Section 73(10) of the CGST/State GST Act would be computed from the date of the High Court’s order, except for the financial year 2024–25, which would be governed by Section 44 of the Act. The petitioner would remain liable to pay any arrears, including tax, penalty, interest, and late fees. While the Standing Counsel for the CGST submitted that there was delay in approaching the Court and requested that the order not be treated as a precedent, the Court nonetheless granted relief in the peculiar facts of the case. Case Details Case Title: Mrs Bobismrita Chetia Gogoi Versus UOI Citation: JURISHOUR-91-HC-2026(Gau) Case No.: WP(C)/956/2026 Date: 20.02.2026 Counsel For Petitioner: R.S. Mishra Counsel For Respondent: S.C. Keyal Click Here To Read Order Read More: Foreign Tax Credit Can’t Be Denied for Delay in Filing Form No. 67: Delhi High Court

Gauhati HC Allows Taxpayer to Seek GST Registration Restoration After Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns

Membership Required

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 22 May, 2026

Movement of Goods to Depots for Inventory Replenishment Can’t Be Treated as Inter-State Sale: CESTAT

Customs Broker Can’t Be Penalised for Export of Ergotamine Preparation; S. 117 Not Invocable Where Specific Penalty Provision Exists: CESTAT

Dept. Appeal Doesn’t Automatically Stay Appellate Order; GST Registration Restoration Directions Must Be Followed Without Specific Stay: Allahabad HC

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 22 May, 2026

Movement of Goods to Depots for Inventory Replenishment Can’t Be Treated as Inter-State Sale: CESTAT

Customs Broker Can’t Be Penalised for Export of Ergotamine Preparation; S. 117 Not Invocable Where Specific Penalty Provision Exists: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories