Mrs Bobismrita Chetia Gogoi vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Mrs. Bobismrita Chetia Gogoi, operating as M/S Poly Enterprise, is registered under the CGST/AGST Act, 2017. Her GST registration was cancelled by the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, Dibrugarh-1 Range, Assam, via an order dated 11.11.2024, due to non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner was served a show cause notice dated 07.10.2024, but claims she was unaware of it due to miscommunication with her tax consultant. By the time she became aware, the reply period had expired, and the cancellation order was uploaded. She subsequently updated all pending returns and paid dues, including late fees and interest, but could not file a revocation application due to the expiry of the 270-day time limit.
Held
The Court held that the cancellation of GST registration entails serious civil consequences. Referring to Section 29(2)(c) of the Act and the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which allows for dropping proceedings if pending returns are furnished and tax dues along with interest and late fees are paid, the Court found merit in the petitioner's situation. Although the statutory time limit for revocation had expired, the Court, considering the petitioner's subsequent compliance and the principle of rectifying defaults, directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority within two months seeking restoration. The authority was directed to consider the application and comply with the requirements of the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and take necessary steps for restoration expeditiously. The Court also clarified that the period under Section 73(10) would be computed from the date of the order, except for FY 2024-25, and the petitioner would be liable for arrears.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek restoration of her GST registration despite the expiry of the statutory time limit for filing a revocation application, considering she has since filed all pending returns and paid outstanding dues, including interest and late fees? The petitioner argued that due to a miscommunication with her tax consultant, she was unaware of the show cause notice and the subsequent cancellation order. She contended that she has now rectified all defaults by filing pending returns up to November 2024 and discharging all GST dues, interest, and late fees. She further submitted that she is ready to comply with the requirements of the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The respondents, represented by Shri S.C. Keyal, did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for restoration but noted the delay in approaching the court and requested that any order not be treated as a precedent.
Sections Cited
Section 29(2)(c), Rule 22(4), Rule 22, Section 73(10), Section 44
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Date of hearing and judgment : 20.02.2026. JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) Heard Shri RS Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri SC Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CGST for the respondents.
It is the case of the petitioner that she has been carrying out her business under the name & style, “M/S Poly Enterprise”. She is the sole proprietor and 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. 18A1EPC1892N3ZW. 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. ZA1810240050266 dated 07.10.2024 asking her to furnish reply to the aforesaid notice within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of service of notice and it was mentioned in the aforesaid show cause notice that if the petitioner 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 11.11.2024 was passed by the Superintendent,
Page No.# 3/6 Dibrugarh-1 Range, Assam, whereby the petitioner’s GST registration has been cancelled.
It is contended that due to miscommunication with the tax consultant, the petitioner was not aware of the show cause notice. Therefore, she 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.
The petitioner further contends that she has updated all her pending returns up to the month of November, 2024 as allowed by the GST portal and while updating her returns, the petitioner has also discharged all her GST dues along with her late fees and interest.
Thereafter, the petitioner 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.”
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
Shri Mishra, 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 subrule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. 8. 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
Page No.# 4/6 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 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-rule (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 Page No.# 5/6 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 i.e. 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 & Ors.) wherein the petitioner therein was similarly situated like the present petitioner.
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 petitioner 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 approaches 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 petitioner shall approach the concerned authority within a period of 2 (two) months from today seeking restoration of her GST registration. If the petitioner submits 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 Page No.# 6/6 application of the petitioner for restoration of her 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 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.
Shri Keyal, the learned counsel has however submitted that there is delay in approaching this Court and though orders may be passed following the earlier orders, the same may not be treated as a precedent.
The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No cost.
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.