M/S Ad Enterprise And Anr vs. The State Of Assam And Othrs
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s Ad Enterprise and its partner, are challenging the cancellation of their GST registration. The registration was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax on November 6, 2024, due to non-submission of returns, as required by Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners claim they were unaware of the show cause notice issued on August 12, 2024, and consequently did not file a reply. They approached the High Court as the time limit for filing an appeal against the cancellation order and for revocation of the cancellation had expired. The petitioners are represented by Mr. M. Barman, and the respondents by Mr. B. Gogoi, Addl. AG, Assam.
Held
The Court held that the issue was no longer res integra, referencing a previous judgment of the same Court in Motaleb Bhuyan Vs. The State Of Assam And Others. The Court decided to pass similar directions as in the cited case. Consequently, the order of cancellation of registration dated November 6, 2024, was set aside and quashed. The petitioners were directed to file all pending returns within 30 days from the date of the judgment. If returns had already been submitted for some periods, the direction would apply only to periods where returns were not filed. The period stipulated in Section 73(10) of the CGST Act, 2017, for computation would commence from the date of the instant judgment, except for the financial year 2025-26, which would be governed by Section 44 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners were also held liable to pay arrears, including tax, penalty, interest, and late fees.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order of cancellation of GST registration dated November 6, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, is liable to be set aside and quashed, considering the petitioners' claim of non-awareness of the show cause notice and expiry of appeal/revocation periods. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017, and principles of natural justice. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that they were unaware of the show cause notice and the subsequent cancellation order, and have approached the court as the prescribed periods for appeal and revocation have expired. They seek relief from this Court. Revenue/State: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, their defense would likely be based on the petitioners' failure to comply with Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the validity of the cancellation order passed due to non-compliance.
Sections Cited
Section 39, Section 73(10), Section 44
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010017002026
2026:GAU-AS:2330
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/654/2026 M/S AD ENTERPRISE AND ANR REP. BY ITS PARTNER JOHIRUL ISLAM , BHAOURI BHITHA, CHAYGAON, HATISHOLA, UTTAR BHAOURI BHITHA, KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FINANCE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 06, ASSAM. 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX ASSAM KAR BHAWAN G.S ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX BISWANATH CHARIALI-01 ASSAM PIN-78417 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Barman, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Gogoi, Addl. AG, Assam
Page No.# 2/5
· Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 16.02.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. M. Barman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
The Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the cancellation of their registration in terms with Section 39 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST Act of 2017’).
The materials on record reveal that the Petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm duly registered under the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’) and the Petitioner No.2 is its partner and authorized representative. The Petitioners upon registration under the Act of 2017 was provided with the GSTIN/Unique ID bearing No.18ABUFA5174E1Z4. 4. On account of non-submission of the returns, which is required in terms with Section 39 of the CGST Act of 2017 (which Page No.# 3/5 the Petitioners do not deny in the instant petition), a Show Cause Notice was issued on 12.08.2024 asking the Petitioners as to why their registration should not be cancelled. In addition to that, it was also mentioned that their registration would stand suspended w.e.f. 12.08.2024 itself.
It is the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners were not aware of such notice and as such did not file any reply. As no reply had been filed, the Respondent No.3 passed an order dated 06.11.2024 cancelling the registration of the Petitioners. However, it was mentioned in the said cancellation order dated 06.11.2024 that the licence was cancelled as the Petitioners had failed to furnish the returns.
The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners intended to file an appeal against the cancellation of their GST registration; however, the prescribed period of three months for filing the appeal, along with the additional period of one month, had already expired. The learned counsel further submitted that, as the limitation period for filing an application for revocation of the order cancelling the GST registration had also expired, the Petitioners have approached this Court.
Page No.# 4/5
In this regard, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that the issue involved in the instant proceedings is no longer res- disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The order of cancellation of registration dated 06.11.2024 is set aside and quashed. (ii) The Petitioners herein are directed to file the returns for the entire period for which order of cancellation of registration was passed till date within 30 days from the date of the instant judgment. It is observed that if in the meantime, the Petitioners had submitted any return for any period, the directions passed in the instant Clause shall be restricted to the period when the Petitioner did not file the returns.
Page No.# 5/5 (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 also shall be liable to make payment of the arrears i.e. tax, penalty, interest and late fees.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant Bijoy Saha 11:06:57 +05'30'
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.