Revocation of Cancellation: Restoration Allowed Even After Time Limit Elapses

Issue

Whether a GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns (under Section 29) can be restored even if the statutory time limit for filing a revocation application under Section 30 has already expired.

Facts

The Cancellation: The registration of the assessee was cancelled because they failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months.
The Procedural Hurdle: The assessee wanted to restart the business and apply for revocation. However, the GST portal blocked the application because the prescribed time limit (typically 90 days, extendable up to 270 days) had already elapsed.
Assessee’s Plea: The assessee expressed readiness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, and late fees to regularize their status and resume business operations.

Decision

Judicial Flexibility: The Court held that the power to cancel registration is a drastic measure that affects a person’s right to carry on business. If a taxpayer is willing to clear all government dues, the procedural lapse of time should not be an absolute bar to restoration.
Conditional Restoration: The Court directed the Department to:
1. Intimate Dues: Calculate and inform the assessee of the total outstanding statutory dues (Tax + Interest + Penalty + Late Fee) until the date of cancellation.
2. Payment by Assessee: The assessee must deposit the entire amount as calculated.
3. Mandatory Revocation: Upon payment, the respondent authority is directed to exercise its powers to revoke the cancellation and restore the GST registration.
Outcome: In favour of the assessee.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

The 270-Day Rule: Normally, Section 30 allows 90 days for revocation, which can be extended by the Commissioner for another 180 days (Total: 270 days). If you cross this, the portal will generally not accept your application.
Writ Jurisdiction: When the portal blocks you and the “alternative remedy” (Appeal) is also time-barred, a Writ Petition in the High Court is the primary route for relief. Courts consistently rule that the goal of GST is “revenue collection, not business closure.”
Amnesty Schemes: Periodically, the Government introduces Amnesty Schemes (like the ones in 2023 and 2025) which allow taxpayers to restore cancelled registrations regardless of the time limit, usually by paying a capped late fee.

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.