Dug Rade vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Dug Rade, operating M/s T Y Enterprise, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.12.2024, passed by the Superintendent, Itanagar Range, CGST and SGST Department, which cancelled his GST registration. The petitioner stated that he lost his login credentials for the GST portal, preventing him from filing returns. Upon retrieving his credentials, he filed all pending returns up to December 2024 and paid the relevant penalty. Despite this, the cancellation order was not revoked. The petitioner relied on a previous order of the same High Court in a similar case (WP(C) No. 86 (AP) of 2026) where relief was granted. The respondents stated they had no objection to similar relief being granted.
Held
The Court held that the cancellation of GST registration, which entails serious civil consequences, can be considered for dropping proceedings if the registered person complies with the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. This involves furnishing all pending returns and making full payment of tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee. The Court noted that the petitioner had already filed returns and deposited penalties. Citing a previous judgment in WP(C) No. 86 (AP) of 2026 and the principles laid down in Pankaj Mohan vs. Union of India, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities within 15 days with an application for restoration of his GST registration. Upon receipt of the application and compliance with the requirements, the authorities were directed to consider and restore the registration within four weeks. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, for non-furnishing of returns for a continuous period of six months, can be dropped if the registered person subsequently furnishes all pending returns and makes full payment of tax dues, interest, and late fee, as per the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he had filed all pending returns and paid dues after retrieving his login credentials, and therefore, the cancellation order should be revoked. He relied on a previous High Court order in a similar case (WP(C) No. 86 (AP) of 2026) which directed the authorities to consider restoration of registration upon compliance. Revenue's arguments: The respondents (Union of India, Commissioner of CGST, Superintendent of CGST) stated they had no objection to granting similar relief as in the previously cited case.
Sections Cited
Section 29, Rule 22, Section 73, Section 44
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 19.03.2026 Heard Mr. G. Gunia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Meto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Kato, learned Dy.S.G.I. for the respondent No.1 and Mr. T. Kipa, learned CGC for the CGST &CX, Itanagar representing respondents No.2 and 3. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing the Order No.ZA1212240007896P, dated 31.12.2024, passed by the Superintendent, Itanagar Range, CGST and SGST Department, Arunachal Pradesh, and also prayed for issuing direction to the respondents to revoke the cancellation of registration as ordered by the aforesaid impugned order dated 31.12.2024. 3. Mr. Gunia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforementioned impugned order dated 31.12.2024, passed by the Superintendent, Itanagar Range, CGST and SGST Department, whereby the CGST registration of the petitioner was cancelled.
He also submits that the petitioner has been running a business as proprietor of M/s T. Y. Enterprise at Industrial Area, A Sector, Naharlagun, Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh and due to the loss of his login credentials for the GST portal, he could not access the same. After continuous efforts, he retrieved the login ID, and upon obtaining the credentials, he filed all GST
Page No.# 3/8 returns up to the date of cancellation, i.e., December 2024; and the relevant documents have been annexed as Annexures-D and E to the petition. Learned counsel submits that although the petitioner has filed all returns up to the date of cancellation of the GST registration, but the respondent authorities have not yet revoked the cancellation order.
1 Mr. Gunia, further submits that in a similarly situated matter, in WP(C) No. 86 (AP) of 2026, this Court, vide order dated 06.03.2026 (annexed as Annexure- F), has granted relief by directing the petitioner therein to approach the respondent authorities by filing an appropriate application and further directed the authorities to consider the same in accordance with law, along with a direction for restoration of registration, andthat similar directions may be issued in the present petition as well.
Mr. Meto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Kato, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and Mr. T. Kipa, learned CGC for CGST & CX, submit that they have no objection if similar relief is granted to the petitioner, as granted to the petitioner, in WP(C) No. 86 (AP) of 2026. 6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the relevant provision of law. Also gone through the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
It appears that vide order dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure-C), the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled after issuing a Show Cause Notice, dated 07.10.2024 (Annexure-B). It also appears from the Annexures-D and E
Page No.# 4/8 series of documents enclosed with the petition, that the petitioner has already filed the returns and also deposited the penalty amount. Further,from the Annexure-F, the order dated 06.03.2026, passed in WP(C) No. 86(AP) of 2026, it WP(C) Nos. 7342/2025, decided on 18.12.2025, found that the petitioner therein was similarly situated to the petitioner in the said case and accordingly granted relief on the same terms. The relevant para of the said decision is reproduced herein below, for ready reference:- “10. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the judgment and order dated 17.10.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dhirghat Hardware Stores (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:
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.
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 Page No.# 5/8 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 sub-rul (1), (or under sub-rule (24) of Rule 21A) cancel the registration, with effect from a date to be determined by him and notify the taxable person, directing him pay arrears of any tax, interest or penalty including the amount liable to be pa under sub-section (5) of Section 29. 4) Where the reply furnished under sub-rule (2) (or in response to the no issued under sub-rule (24) of Rule 214) is found to be satisfactory, the pre officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORM GST REG-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
Page No.# 6/8 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.
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 Le Form GST REG-20. 11. 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 vs. The Union of India and others) wherein the petitioner therein was similarly situated like the present petitioners.
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
Page No.# 7/8 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 petitioners 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.
In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioners shall approach the concerned authority within a period of 2 (two) months from today seeking restoration of her GST registration. If the petitioners 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 petitioners 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.
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 pe Section 44 of the Central GST Act/State GST Act. The petitioners herein wou also be liable to make payment of arrears i.e.
Page No.# 8/8 tax. penalty, interest and la fees.”
Thus, in view of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and taking note of the order dated 06.03.2026, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 86(AP) of 2026, as well as the decision dated 18.10.2025, in Pankaj Mohan(supra), this Court is inclined to dispose of the present petition by directing the petitioner to file an appropriate application before respondent Nos. 2 and 3 within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of passing of this order for restoration of his GST registration.
Upon such application being filed, the respondent authorities shall verify and consider the same in accordance with law and thereafter, restore the GST registration of the petitioner.
The aforesaid exercise(s) shall be carried out within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondents No. 2 and 3, within a period of 1 (one) week from today.
In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
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.