GST registration should be restored once the assessee clears all pending returns and statutory dues.

By | June 28, 2025

GST registration should be restored once the assessee clears all pending returns and statutory dues.

Issue

Whether the GST registration of an assessee, which was cancelled suo motu by the department for non-filing of returns, should be restored if the assessee subsequently files all pending returns, pays the due taxes along with interest and penalties, but is procedurally barred from applying for revocation.

Facts

The assessee’s GST registration was cancelled by the tax authorities due to the non-filing of returns for a continuous period exceeding six months. The assessee explained that this failure was on account of his illness, which prevented him from managing his business affairs. He only became aware of the cancellation order after resuming his work.

Following this, the assessee took corrective measures by filing all the pending GST returns up to the month in which the registration was cancelled. He also paid all the outstanding taxes and the applicable late fees and penalties. However, despite this compliance, the GST portal or the authorities did not permit him to file an application for the revocation of the cancellation, leaving him without a remedy. This prompted the assessee to approach the court for relief.

Decision

The High Court ruled in favour of the assessee, directing the GST authorities to restore the assessee’s registration upon confirmation of full compliance.

Following its own judicial precedents in similar matters, the Court directed the GST department to:

  1. Intimate the assessee of any further statutory dues that might be pending.
  2. Upon payment of any such remaining dues by the assessee, the GST authorities are to restore the GST registration.

The decision was based on the principle that once the assessee has demonstrated bona fide intent by rectifying the default (i.e., filing all returns and paying all dues), the registration ought to be restored to allow them to continue their business.

Key Takeaways

  • Substantive Compliance Over Procedural Hurdles: The courts tend to favour assessees who have completed their substantive compliance, such as filing all pending returns and clearing all tax dues, even if they have missed procedural deadlines for seeking revocation.
  • Restoration After Payment: The cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns is not intended to be a permanent measure if the assessee is willing to rectify the non-compliance. Restoration is generally allowed once all taxes, interest, and penalties are paid.
  • Judicial Remedy: When technical or procedural barriers on the GST portal prevent an assessee from applying for revocation despite having fulfilled the necessary compliance, the assessee can seek relief from the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.
  • Cooperative Approach: The ruling encourages a cooperative approach where the tax department should verify the payment of dues and facilitate the restoration of registration, rather than taking an adversarial stance.
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Jenia Namchoom
v.
Union of India
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
WP(C) No.221 of 2025
MAY  27, 2025
Shantanu Kumar Sarma and Eddie Payeng, Advs. for the Petitioner. Marto Kato and M.K. Boro, Advs. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.K. Boro, learned standing counsel for the respondents in the CGST.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.05.2024, passed by the respondent No. 3/Superintendent of Central Goods and Services Tax, Namsai Range, Namsai, Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled.
3. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been carrying on business of work contract services under the name and style of M/s FRAA TAKA INFRATECH and on account of his illness, he could not file his GST returns for a continuous period of more than six months, and thereafter, the respondent No. 3 had issued a show cause notice to him and his GST registration was cancelled. Mr. Sarma also submits that the petitioner came to know about cancellation of his GST registration only when he resumed his business work on the later part of March, 2025, and thereafter, he immediately filed his pending GST returns till May, 2024 i.e. the month in which his registration was cancelled and also paid all the taxes and late fines/penalties payable thereon, however, he was not permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation of his registration under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 23(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as the limitation period including the extended period had already expired. Mr. Sarma further submits that thereafter, the petitioner had preferred one appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107(1) of the Act praying for setting aside the impugned order, but the same was also dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation. Mr. Sarma also submits that in the case of Ms Yassung Yangfo v. Union of India WP(C) No. 70 of 2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 24.02.2025, had granted relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, restoring the GST registration of the petitioner therein, and as such, similar relief may be granted to the petitioner herein also.
4. Mr. Boro, learned standing counsel for the respondents in the CGST has not controverted to the submission of Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order dated 04.05.2024, annexed as Annexure-3 in this petition.
6. I have also perused Annexure-4 Colly, which indicates that the petitioner has submitted his GST returns up to May, 2024.
7. Further, it appears that in the case of Ms Yassung Yangfo (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 24.02.2025, relying upon a decision of another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Krishanu Borthakur v. Union of India  (Gauhati)/WP(C) No. 7057/2024, had interfered with the GST cancellation order and also directed the Superintendent, Central Goods and Services Tax, Bhalukpung Range to intimate the petitioner therein the total outstanding statutory dues, if any, standing in the name of the petitioner till the date of cancellation of the GST registration.
8. Mr. Boro, learned standing counsel for the respondents in the CGST submits that he has no objection in the event of passing similar order in the present petition also.
9. Taking note of the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, the impugned cancellation order dated 04.05.2024 (Annexure-3 of this petition) is interfered with and accordingly, the same stands set aside and quashed. The respondent No. 3 is directed to intimate the petitioner if any statutory dues are pending and if any such dues are pending, then upon payment of the said dues, the respondent No. 3 will pass appropriate order to restore the GST registration of the petitioner.
10. The aforesaid exercise has to be carried out within period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent No. 3 within a period of one week from today.
11. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of at this motion stage itself.