R P Infratech And Anr vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, R P Infratech and its partner, are registered under the CGST Act, 2017 and AGST Act, 2017. Their GST registration was cancelled due to filing nil GSTR-3B returns despite accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC). A show cause notice was issued on 21.09.2024, but the petitioners, unfamiliar with the online portal, failed to file a timely reply or appear for a hearing. Consequently, their registration was cancelled. They subsequently applied for revocation on 28.03.2025, which was rejected on the grounds of unpaid government dues. Aggrieved, they filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court.
Held
The Court held that the order of cancellation of registration dated 21.12.2024 is set aside and quashed. The Court found that similar issues had been dealt with in the case of Motaleb Bhuyan Vs. The State Of Assam And Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1429, and directed that similar directions be passed. The petitioners are directed to file all pending returns from the date of default until the present date within 30 days of the order. The period stipulated in Section 73(10) of the CGST Act, 2017, for recovery proceedings will be computed from the date of the instant judgment, with an exception for the financial year 2025-26, which will be governed by Section 44 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners are also liable to pay all arrears, including tax, penalty, interest, and late fees.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017, for non-filing of returns, despite an application for revocation being filed, is sustainable when the petitioner claims unfamiliarity with the online portal. Petitioner's argument: The petitioners contended that their failure to file returns and reply to the show cause notice was due to their lack of familiarity with the GST online portal. They argued that the rejection of their revocation application, based on unpaid government dues, was erroneous given the circumstances. They relied on the principle that procedural difficulties should not lead to the denial of substantive relief. Revenue's argument: The revenue authorities argued that the cancellation of registration was in accordance with Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017, and that the rejection of the revocation application was justified due to non-payment of government dues. They likely relied on the statutory provisions and the facts on record indicating non-compliance by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 29, Section 73(10), Section 44
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. P. Buragohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel for the Finance and Taxation Department, Assam.
The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the cancellation of its registration in terms with Section 29 of the Central Goods and Page No.# 3/5 Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST Act of 2017’). The petitioners thereupon filed an application seeking revocation of the cancellation of the registration, however, the same was rejected on the ground that all Government Dues has not been paid. It is under such circumstances, the petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
The materials on record reveal that the petitioners herein are engaged in the business of construction and related services under the name and style of ‘R P Infratech’ and is a registered Assessee under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘CGST Act of 2017’)/Assam Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the AGST Act of 2017). The petitioners have obtained a registration under the CGST Act of 2017 and was provided with the Unique ID bearing GST Registration No.18ABCFR1423K1Z8. 4. On account of filing of nil GSTR-3B despite accumulated ITC, a show cause notice was issued on 21.09.2024 asking the petitioners to appear before the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax on 25.09.2024 at 11:33 hours. In addition to that, it was also mentioned that if the petitioners fail to furnish reply within the stipulated date or fail to appear for personal hearing on the appointed date and time, the case of the petitioners would be Page No.# 4/5 observations and directions: (i) The order of cancellation of registration dated 21.12.2024 is set aside and quashed.
Page No.# 5/5 (ii) The petitioners herein are directed to file the returns for the period from the date the petitioner had failed to file the returns till date, within 30 days from the date of the instant order. (iii) The period as stipulated in Section 73(10) of the CGST Act of 2017 shall be computed from the date of the instant judgment, except for the financial year 2025-26, which shall be as per Section 44 of the CGST Act of 2017. (iv) The petitioners herein shall also be liable to make payment of the arrears i.e. tax, penalty, interest and late fees.
With the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pradip Kumar Kalita
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.