Sri Nabin Roy vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri Nabin Roy, an assessee registered under the GST Act, 2017, failed to file his GST returns for a continuous period of six months due to personal problems. Consequently, on December 6, 2023, the Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax issued a show cause notice proposing cancellation of his GST registration. The petitioner's registration was cancelled on April 19, 2024. He subsequently attempted to file an application for revocation of cancellation, but the system indicated that the time limit of 270 days from the cancellation order had expired. The petitioner then approached the High Court, citing similar orders passed by co-ordinate benches for restoration of GST registration.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's GST registration should be restored. The Court noted that the petitioner was engaged in business and that his inclusion within the GST regime was essential for ensuring compliance with his statutory obligations of tax payment, which in turn contributes to revenue collection. The Court observed that similar orders had been passed by this Court and other co-ordinate benches, directing the revocation of cancellation upon payment of all statutory dues. Therefore, to avoid keeping the present writ petition pending and in line with previous judgments, the impugned order of cancellation dated April 19, 2024, was interfered with and set aside. The Superintendent of Central Goods & Services Tax was directed to inform the petitioner of any outstanding statutory dues until the date of cancellation. Upon payment of these dues, the respondent authority was ordered to revoke the cancellation and restore the petitioner's GST registration. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's GST registration, cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six months, can be restored despite the expiry of the statutory period for filing a revocation application, considering the petitioner's submission of personal difficulties and reliance on previous High Court orders. The petitioner argued that due to personal problems, his GST returns were not filed for six months, leading to the cancellation of his registration. He further contended that the time limit for filing a revocation application had expired, leaving him with no alternative but to approach the High Court. He relied on various orders passed by co-ordinate benches of the High Court that directed the restoration of GST registration in similar circumstances. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, GST, did not dispute the existence of such orders passed by co-ordinate benches directing restoration upon complete payment of dues.
Sections Cited
Section 29
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 28.01.2026
Heard Mr. R. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Jain, learned Standing Counsel, GST.
The petitioner is engaged in execution of works contract and is an assessee registered under the provision of GST Act, 2017 and has GST Registration being Registration No. 18BGDPR8999F1ZJ.
Pursuant to being registered under the GST Act, the petitioner has been regularly submitting his GST returns. However, due to several personal problems his GST returns could not be submitted for a continuous period of 6 (six) months. On 06.12.2023, respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice on the petitioner to show cause as to why the GST registration should not be cancelled for not filing the returns for a continuous period of 6 months. The reply was directed to be submitted within 30 days from the date of service of notice.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 19.04.2024 under reference No. ZA180424018894B the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled. The effective date of cancellation was 19.04.2024. The Page No.# 3/5 petitioner thereafter, tried to file necessary application seeking revocation of GST cancellation however, the same could not be filed as the time limit prescribed for filing of revocation application had 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”. The petitioner having no other alternative has approached this Court instead of preferring the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to various orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches too, whereby this Court had passed orders for restoration of the GST registration.
Mr. K Jain, learned Standing Counsel, GST, however, does not dispute the position that orders have been passed by the Co-ordinate Benches directing the restoration of GST Registration upon complete payment of all dues, if any.
The learned counsels for the parties have been heard. Pleadings available on record have also been perused.
The petitioner is engaged in the business of trading of ancillary items. Under the GST regime, the petitioner was required to pay the necessary dues under the CGST or SGST. These statutory dues are required to be paid by all entities who are registered under the GST regime. Such payments of statutory due(s) contribute towards the revenue collection by the Union. If the petitioner is not Page No.# 4/5 included within the GST regime, then any statutory dues that may be required to be deposited by the petitioner will not be deposited and which will not be in the interest of the revenue. Therefore, in order that the petitioner is required to comply with his statutory obligations of payment of taxes under the GST regime, it would be necessary for the departmental authorities to re-consider the prayer of the petitioner for revocation of his cancellation of GST registration.
It is submitted at the bar that there are several orders passed by this Court as well as by other Co-ordinate Benches in similar matters whereby the matters have been disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to revoke the cancellation of registration upon due payment of all statutory dues payable by the petitioners. In some matters, the assessee had approached the statutory appellate authority for redressal of their grievances which however, was rejected by the appellate authority. This Court is therefore of the view that since similar such orders have been passed by this Court as well as other Co-ordinate Benches, it will serve no purpose to keep the present writ petition pending. This present writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of similar orders as had been done by the orders passed in W.P(C) No. 6930/2023, W.P(C) No. 1049/2023, WP(C) No.5181/2023 and WP(C) No.6366/2023. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.04.2024 is hereby interfered with Page No.# 5/5 and set aside. It is directed that the Respondent No. 3, namely Superintendent of Central Goods & Services Tax, Guwahati will intimate the petitioner the total outstanding statutory dues, if any, standing in the name of the petitioner till the date of cancellation of his GST registration. Upon such intimation, if any such outstanding statutory dues under GST are required to be paid, the same shall be deposited by the petitioner without fail. Upon such payment of statutory dues under the GST by the petitioner, the respondent authority will pass appropriate orders and revoke the cancellation by restoring the GST registration of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
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.