Gangte Togung vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors

Held

The Court held that the case of the petitioner was squarely covered by the previous orders of coordinate benches in Rakhe Achi (supra) and Tai Miri (supra). The reasoning was based on the similarity of facts and the established precedent set by those judgments. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to similar relief. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with specific directions. The Superintendent of CGST was directed to intimate the petitioner of his total statutory outstanding dues, including any penalty or fine, as of the date of cancellation. The petitioner was then required to pay these dues within 21 days of receiving the intimation. Upon proof of payment, the Superintendent was to revoke the cancellation order dated 29.04.2024 and restore the petitioner's GST registration. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Gangte Togung, operating M/s G.T and Son Enterprise, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his GST registration by the Superintendent of CGST, Naharlagun Zone-I, Itanagar Range, via an order dated 29.04.2024. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file GST returns for a continuous period of six months, commencing from September 2023. The petitioner claimed he was unaware of the system-generated show cause notice dated 12.03.2024 due to relying on GST practitioners and not regularly checking his GST portal or email. Consequently, he could not respond to the notice or file the defaulted returns. The statutory period for revocation had expired, and filing returns after three years from the due date was restricted, preventing him from clearing his tax liabilities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration was justified on the grounds of non-furnishing of returns, considering the petitioner's claim of unawareness of the show cause notice? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and principles of natural justice). The petitioner argued that due to financial constraints, he failed to file returns and remained unaware of the show cause notice as he relied on GST practitioners and did not regularly access the GST portal or email. He contended that the cancellation order, passed after the revocation period expired and with restrictions on late filing, left him unable to discharge his tax liabilities. He relied on previous High Court orders in similar cases (Rakhe Achi Vs. Union of India & Ors. and Tai Miri vs. Union of India & Ors.) where conditional revocation of GST registration was granted. The respondent authorities (Union of India, Commissioner of CGST, and Superintendent of CGST) fairly submitted that the issue was similar to previously decided cases and they had no objection to a similar direction being passed.