GST Registration Restored After Expiry of Revocation Period Subject to Full Payment of Statutory Dues

Issue

Whether a GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns for six months can be restored by the High Court when the statutory time limit for filing a revocation application under Section 30 has already expired.

Facts

The Default: The assessee’s GST registration was cancelled due to a continuous failure to file returns for a period of six months (a violation of Section 29(2)(c)).
The Hurdle: The assessee intended to seek revocation, but the statutory time limit (typically 30–90 days plus potential extensions) had already lapsed, rendering the digital portal for revocation inaccessible.
Assessee’s Plea: The assessee expressed a bona fide intention to regularize compliance by filing all pending returns and paying the outstanding tax, interest, and late fees.
The Appeal: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the authorities to consider the restoration despite the delay.

Decision

Equitable Relief: The Court held that since the cancellation of registration results in “civil death” for a business (preventing legal operations), the Department should adopt a corrective rather than punitive approach if the revenue is protected.
Conditional Restoration: The Court directed the Department to calculate the total outstanding statutory dues (Tax + Interest + Penalty + Late Fees) up to the date of cancellation.
Action Mandated:
- The assessee must deposit the entire calculated amount.
- Upon such deposit, the Department is directed to revoke the cancellation and restore the GST registration.
Outcome: Ruled in favor of the assessee, effectively bypassing the strict time-bar of Section 30 through the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction.

Key Takeaways

Curable Defect: Non-filing is viewed by courts as a curable administrative lapse. If you are willing to clear the debt, the law generally favors allowing you to continue your business.
Writ Jurisdiction as a Remedy: When the GST portal “locks” you out due to time-bar constraints, a Writ Petition under Article 226 is often the only way to compel the authorities to accept an offline or late application for restoration.
Mandatory Prerequisites: Restoration is never “free”—it is always contingent on paying every rupee of tax, interest, and late fees accrued until the date of cancellation.

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI

Nabin Roy

Union of India^*

Soumitra Saikia, J.

W. P. (C) No. 265 of 2026

JANUARY 28, 2026

R.S. Mishra, Ms. M. Dey and Ms. B. Sarma, Advs. for the Petitioner. K Jain, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Heard Mr. R. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Jain, learned Standing Counsel, GST.

2. The petitioner is engaged in execution of works contract and is an assessee registered under the provision of GST Act, 2017 and has GST Registration being Registration No. 18BGDPR8999F1ZJ.

3. Pursuant to being registered under the GST Act, the petitioner has been regularly submitting his GST returns. However, due to several personal problems his GST returns could not be submitted for a continuous period of 6 (six) months. On 06.12.2023, respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice on the petitioner to show cause as to why the GST registration should not be cancelled for not filing the returns for a continuous period of 6 months. The reply was directed to be submitted within 30 days from the date of service of notice.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 19.04.2024 under reference No. ZA180424018894B the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled. The effective date of cancellation was 19.04.2024. The petitioner thereafter, tried to file necessary application seeking revocation of GST cancellation however, the same could not be filed as the time limit prescribed for filing of revocation application had elapsed and a message was displayed in the screen “Timeline of 270 days from the date of cancellation order provided to taxpayer to file application for revocation of cancellation is expired”. The petitioner having no other alternative has approached this Court instead of preferring the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to various orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches too, whereby this Court had passed orders for restoration of the GST registration.

5. Mr. K Jain, learned Standing Counsel, GST, however, does not dispute the position that orders have been passed by the Co-ordinate Benches directing the restoration of GST Registration upon complete payment of all dues, if any.

6. The learned counsels for the parties have been heard. Pleadings available on record have also been perused.

7. The petitioner is engaged in the business of trading of ancillary items. Under the GST regime, the petitioner was required to pay the necessary dues under the CGST or SGST. These statutory dues are required to be paid by all entities who are registered under the GST regime. Such payments of statutory due(s) contribute towards the revenue collection by the Union. If the petitioner is not included within the GST regime, then any statutory dues that may be required to be deposited by the petitioner will not be deposited and which will not be in the interest of the revenue. Therefore, in order that the petitioner is required to comply with his statutory obligations of payment of taxes under the GST regime, it would be necessary for the departmental authorities to re-consider the prayer of the petitioner for revocation of his cancellation of GST registration.

8. It is submitted at the bar that there are several orders passed by this Court as well as by other Co-ordinate Benches in similar matters whereby the matters have been disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to revoke the cancellation of registration upon due payment of all statutory dues payable by the petitioners. In some matters, the assessee had approached the statutory appellate authority for redressal of their grievances which however, was rejected by the appellate authority. This Court is therefore of the view that since similar such orders have been passed by this Court as well as other Co-ordinate Benches, it will serve no purpose to keep the present writ petition pending. This present writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of similar orders as had been done by the orders passed in Pritam Nath v. Union of India (Gauhati)/W.P(C) No. 6930/2023, Pronoti Sarkar v. Union of India GSTL 210 (Gauhati)/W.P(C) No. 1049/2023, Dhruba Jyoti Saikia v. Union of India [WP. (C) No. 5181 of 2023, dated 8-9-2023] and Sanjoy Nath v. Union of India (Gauhati)/[2024] 102 GST 176 (Gauhati)/[2024] 82 GSTL 49 (Gauhati)/WP(C) No.6366/2023.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.04.2024 is hereby interfered with and set aside. It is directed that the Respondent No. 3, namely Superintendent of Central Goods & Services Tax, Guwahati will intimate the petitioner the total outstanding statutory dues, if any, standing in the name of the petitioner till the date of cancellation of his GST registration. Upon such intimation, if any such outstanding statutory dues under GST are required to be paid, the same shall be deposited by the petitioner without fail. Upon such payment of statutory dues under the GST by the petitioner, the respondent authority will pass appropriate orders and revoke the cancellation by restoring the GST registration of the petitioner.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.