Gauhati HC: GST Registration Can Be Restored Beyond 270 Days If All Returns and Dues Are Paid.

The Dispute: The 270-Day “Hard Block”

The Conflict: A tours and travels proprietor had their GST registration cancelled for failing to file returns for six consecutive months.

The Compliance: After the cancellation, the petitioner realized the error and filed all pending returns (up to April 2024), paying the full tax, interest, and late fees.
The Portal Error: When attempting to file for Revocation of Cancellation, the GST portal blocked the request, displaying a message that the 270-day statutory limit (90 days + 180 days extension) had expired.
The Legal Gap: The revenue authorities argued that once the 270-day window closes, the portal technically “locks” the registration, and the law provides no further recourse.

The Judicial Verdict: Rule 22(4) as a Curative Shield

The Court ruled in favour of the Assessee (Remanded), bypassing the portal’s technical block by invoking the Proviso to Rule 22(4):

1. The Power to “Drop” Proceedings

The Court highlighted that the Proviso to Rule 22(4) is a remedial provision. It states that even if a cancellation notice is issued, if the taxpayer furnishes all pending returns and pays the full dues (tax + interest + late fee), the Proper Officer shall drop the proceedings and issue Form GST REG-20.

2. Prevention of “Serious Civil Consequences”

The Court noted that GST registration is essential for a business to raise invoices and collect tax. Cancellation without a path to restoration—despite full payment of dues—is a “serious civil consequence” that hampers the fundamental right to trade.

3. Overriding the Portal’s Limitation

The High Court held that the 270-day limit on the portal should not act as an absolute bar to justice when the revenue’s interests (tax collection) have already been protected.

The Court’s Directions for Restoration

The matter was disposed of with specific instructions:

Time to Appeal: The petitioner was granted two months to approach the tax authorities manually with proof of compliance.
Verification: The authority must verify that all returns are filed and all arrears (tax, penalty, interest) are paid.
Restoration: Upon satisfaction of the conditions under Rule 22(4), the officer was directed to take steps for restoration of the GSTIN.
Limitation Adjustment: The Court clarified that for future proceedings (like Section 73), the limitation clock would be reset to start from the date of this court order (except for FY 2024-25).

Strategic Takeaways for Taxpayers in 2026

The “Clear Dues First” Strategy: If you have missed the 270-day window, do not simply file a writ. First, file all pending returns and pay all taxes/fees. The Court is far more likely to grant relief if you approach them as a “compliant taxpayer” rather than a “defaulter.”
Invoke Rule 22(4) Proviso: In your manual application to the Commissioner or in a Writ Petition, specifically cite the Proviso to Rule 22(4). It is a stronger argument for “dropping proceedings” than the standard revocation under Section 30.
Manual Representation: When the portal says “No,” go manual. Send your proof of payment and returns to the jurisdictional officer via registered post. This builds the necessary paper trail for the High Court.
Restoration is Retrospective: Once your registration is restored via this route, it is typically restored from the original date of cancellation, allowing you to bridge the gap in your business transactions and Input Tax Credit (ITC).

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI

Panchatantra Tours and Travels

Union of India^*

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

WP(C) No. 1231 OF 2026

MARCH 11, 2026

Ms. M. Das, Adv. for the Petitioner. S. Chetia, Sr. SC and S.K. Medhi, CGC for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Ms. Mamoni Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. Chetia, learned Senior Standing Counsel, CGST for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. Also heard Ms. M. Das, on behalf of Shri S. K. Medhi, learned CGC for the respondent no. 1.

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is carrying out its business under the name & style, “Panchatantra Tours & Travels” and the sole proprietor is an assessee registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017/Assam Goods and Services Tax (AGST) Act, 2017 bearing registration No. 18AEOPD9468F2Z0. 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. ZA181123009779D dated 13.11.2023 asking it to furnish reply to the aforesaid notice within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of service of notice and to appear for personal hearing on 11.12.2023. 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 15.04.2024 was passed by the Superintendent, Guwahati D-5, whereby the petitioner’s GST registration has been cancelled without assigning any reason.

3. The petitioner has contended that due to financial hardships in business, he was neither able to file return nor could visit the GST portal and thereby could 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.

4. It is further contended that he has 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 cancellation order provided to taxpayer to file application for revocation of cancellation is expired.” Accordingly, this writ petition has been filed.

6. Ms. Mamoni Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is 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 Chetia, the learned Senior Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and further has raised the issue of delay in approaching the Court.

7. 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 has laid down the procedure for cancellation of the registration.

8. 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 is liable 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 subrule

(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 the notice 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.”

9. 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 applicable interest 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.

10. 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 (Gauhati)/[2024] 102 GST 176 (Gauhati)/[2024] 82 GSTL 49 (Gauhati)) wherein the petitioner therein was similarly situated like the present petitioners.

11. 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.

12. 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 provided in 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.

13. It is needless to say that the period as stipulated under Section 73 (10) of the 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.

14. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.