Assam High Court: GST Registration Must Be Restored if All Pending Returns and Dues are Paid.

The Chronology of the Case

The Default: The Petitioner failed to file GST returns for a continuous period of six months.
The Cancellation: Following a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and a personal hearing, the Superintendent cancelled the registration under Section 29(2)(c).
The Appeal: The Petitioner’s initial statutory appeal was dismissed.
Compliance: Post-dismissal, the Petitioner filed all pending returns up to April 2024 and paid the entire tax liability along with interest and late fees.
The Portal Block: When the Petitioner attempted to seek revocation, the GST portal showed that the 270-day window for revocation had expired, leaving the business in a legal limbo.

The Judicial Verdict

The High Court ruled in favour of the Assessee, directing the authorities to reconsider the restoration:

1. The Power of Rule 22(4) Proviso

The Court highlighted that the Proviso to Rule 22(4) of the GST Rules specifically allows an officer to drop cancellation proceedings if the person furnishes all pending returns and pays the full tax amount due, along with interest and late fees.

2. Avoiding “Civil Death” of Business

The Court noted that the cancellation of GST registration has “serious civil consequences,” effectively stopping a citizen from carrying out their fundamental right to trade. Since the primary objective of the law is tax collection and not the permanent closure of businesses, the officer should lean towards restoration once the revenue is protected.

3. Overriding the 270-Day Portal Limit

The Court held that the technical expiration of the 270-day window on the portal should not act as an absolute bar to justice. It directed the Petitioner to approach the authority within two months with proof of full compliance.

4. Form GST REG-20

If the officer is satisfied that the conditions of Rule 22(4) are met, they are empowered to issue an order in Form GST REG-20, officially dropping the cancellation and restoring the GSTIN.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

Pay First, Argue Later: The quickest path to restoration is “full compliance.” Clear every rupee of tax, interest, and late fee before approaching the Court or the Commissioner.
Section 30 vs. Writ: While Section 30 provides a 90-day (extendable) window for revocation, if you have missed this deadline but have since cleared your dues, a Writ Petition is often the only way to bypass the “hard-coded” portal limits.
Retrospective Restoration: Once restored, the registration is typically treated as active from the date of cancellation, allowing you to report past sales and claim missed ITC (subject to other conditions).
Ongoing Compliance: To avoid a repeat of this situation, ensure that even “Nil” returns are filed on time, as Section 29(2) allows cancellation for continuous non-filing.

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI

Sri Pratik Raj Gautam

Union of India^*

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

W. P. (C) No. 1056 OF 2026

FEBRUARY 25, 2026

R.S. Mishra, Adv. for the Petitioner. S.C. Keyal, Sr. Standing Counsel, S.K. Medhi, CGC and Ms. M. Das for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Heard Shri R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. C. Keyal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, CGST for the respondent nos.2 to 4. Ms. M. Das, learned counsel is present for the Union of India on behalf of Shri S.K. Medhi, learned CGC.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been carrying out his business under the name & style, “M/S Gautam Enterprise”. He is the sole proprietor and is an assessee registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017/Assam Goods and Services Tax (AGST) Act, 2017bearing registration No. 18APUPG1878B2ZM. Because of non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice bearing reference No. ZA180424006177P dated 05.04.2024 asking him to furnish reply to the aforesaid notice within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of service of noticeand to appear for personal hearing on 03.05.2024 at 11.00. It was also mentioned that if he fails to furnish a reply within the stipulated date or fails to appear for personal hearing on the appointed date and time, the case will be decided ex-parte on the basis of the available records and on merits. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 13.05.2024 was passed by the Superintendent, Range-II-C, Guwahati, Assam, whereby the petitioner’s GST registration has beencancelled without assigning any reason.

3. The petitioner contended that due to financial hardships in business, he was neither able to file return nor could visit the GST portal and therebycould not submit any reply to the said show cause notice. It is further contended that when the petitioner came across the said notice, the time for filing reply was already over and order had also been uploaded in the portal. Though the petitioner preferred appeal, the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2026.

4. The petitioner further contended that hehas updated all pending returns upto the month of April, 2024 as allowed by the GST portal and while updating returns, the petitioner has also discharged all GST dues along with late fees and interest.

5. Thereafter, he had tried to file the necessary application seeking revocation of GST cancellation, however, the same could not be filed as the time limit prescribed for filing of revocation application was elapsed and a message was displayed in the screen “timeline of 270 days from the date of cancellationorder provided to taxpayer to file application for revocation of cancellation is expired.”

6. Being aggrieved, the petitionerhas approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

7. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioneris ready and willing to comply with all the formalities required as per proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. On the other hand, Shri Keyal, the learned Senior Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and further has raised the issue of delay in approaching the Court.

8. As per Section 29(2)(c) of the Act, an officer, duly empowered, may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he deems fit, where any registered person, has not furnished returns for a continuous period of 6 (six) months. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 haslaid down the procedure for cancellation of the registration.

9. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 being the bone of contention, is extracted herein below:

Rule 22 : Cancellation of Registration

(1) Where the proper officer has reasons to believe that the registration of a person is liable to be cancelled under Section 29, he shall issue a notice to such person in FORM GST REG-17, requiring him to show cause, within a period of seven working days from the date of the service of such notice, as to why his registration shall not be cancelled.

(2) The reply to the show cause notice issued under sub-rule [1] shall be furnished in FORM REG-18 within the period specified in the said sub-rule.

(3) Where a person who has submitted an application for cancellation of his registration is no longer liable to be registered or his registration isliable to be cancelled, the proper officer shall issue an order in FORM GST REG-19, within a period of thirty days from the date of application submitted under Rule 20 or, as the case may be, the date of the reply to the show cause issued under sub-rule

(1), (or under sub-rule (2A) of Rule 21A) cancel the registration, with effect from a date to be determined by him and notify the taxable person, directing him to pay arrears of any tax, interest or penalty including the amount liable to be paid under sub-section (5) of Section 29.

4) Where the reply furnished under sub-rule (2) (or in response to thenotice issued under sub-rule (2A) of Rule 21A) is found to be satisfactory, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORM GST REG-20 : Provided that where the person instead of replying to the notice served under sub rule (1) for contravention of the provisions contained in Clause (b) or Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 29, furnishes all the pending returns and makes full payment of the 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.

(5) The provisions of sub-rule (3) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the legal heirs of a deceased proprietor, as if the application had been submitted by the proprietor himself.

10. It is discernible from a reading of the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 2017 that if a person, who has been served with a show cause notice under Section 29(2)(c) of the Act, is ready and willing to furnish all the pending returns and to make full payment of the tax itself along with applicableinterest and late fee, the officer, duly empowered, can drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form i.e. Form GST REG-20.

11. The learned counsel for the parties have also referred to an Order dated 11.10.2023 passed in a writ petition being WP(C) No.6366/2023 (Sanjoy Nath v. Union of India GST 176/82 GSTL 49 (Gauhati)) wherein the petitioner therein was similarly situated like the present petitioners.

12. Having regard to the fact that the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the Act, for the reason that the petitioners did not submit returns for a period of 6 (six) months and more and the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and cancellation of registration entails serious civil consequences, this Court is of the considered view that in the event the petitioner approach the officer, duly empowered, by furnishing all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer duly empowered, may consider to drop the proceedings and pass an appropriate order in the prescribed Form.

13. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner shall approach the concerned authority within a period of 2 (two) months from today seeking restoration of her GST registration. If the petitioner submit such an application and complies with all the requirements as providedin the proviso to Rule 22 (4) of the Rules, the concerned authority shall consider the application of the petitioner for restoration of GST registration in accordance with law and shall take necessary steps for restoration of GST registration of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

14. It is needless to say that the period as stipulated under Section 73 (10) ofthe Central GST Act/State GST Act shall be computed from the date of the instant order, except for the financial year 2024-25, which shall be as per Section 44 of the Central GST Act/State GST Act. The petitioner herein would also be liable to make payment of arrears i.e. tax, penalty, interest and late fees. It is clarified that this order has been passed on the peculiar facts of this case and shall not be taken as a precedent.

15. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.