Sri Jogendra Sarmah vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri Jogendra Sarmah, an assessee registered under the GST Act, 2017, engaged in works contract, failed to file GST returns for six consecutive months due to personal problems. On November 6, 2024, the respondent authority issued a show-cause notice for cancellation of his GST registration. Subsequently, on December 7, 2024, the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by Respondent No. 3. The petitioner then filed an application for revocation of cancellation. However, on February 11, 2025, Respondent No. 4 issued a show-cause notice proposing rejection of the revocation application, which was rejected by an order dated March 12, 2025. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging these orders.
Held
The Court held that it would be in the interest of revenue for the petitioner to remain within the GST regime to comply with his statutory obligations of payment of taxes. The Court noted that similar matters had been disposed of by directing the respondent authority to revoke the cancellation of registration upon due payment of all statutory dues. Even in cases where the appellate authority rejected the grievance, the High Court had intervened. Therefore, to avoid keeping the writ petition pending and in line with previous orders of the Court and its Co-ordinate Benches, the impugned orders were set aside. The Court directed the respondent to intimate the petitioner of any outstanding statutory dues till the date of cancellation. Upon payment of these dues, the respondent authority was to revoke the cancellation and restore the petitioner's GST registration. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of non-filing of returns leading to cancellation, restoration of registration should be considered upon payment of all outstanding dues, aligning with the interest of revenue and consistent judicial practice.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration and the subsequent rejection of his revocation application were justified, considering the petitioner's failure to file returns for six months and the potential impact on revenue collection? (Question of law and fact, turning on Sections 29 and 30 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 21 of the CGST Rules, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to personal problems, returns were not filed for a continuous period. He relied on various orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches of the High Court directing restoration of GST registration upon payment of dues. Revenue's contention: The counsel for GST did not dispute the position that Co-ordinate Benches had passed orders directing restoration of GST registration upon complete payment of all dues, if any.
Sections Cited
Section 29, Section 30, Section 107, Rule 21, Rule 108
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 09.01.2026
Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. H Baruah, learned counsel, GST, for the respondents.
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. 18BAKPS6402F1ZL.
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 06.11.2024, the concerned respondent Authority 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 7 days from the date of service of notice.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by order bearing
Page No.# 3/5 reference no. ZA181224006975G dated 07.12.2024, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent no.
The petitioner decided to approach the appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 R/W Rule 108 of CGST Rules, 2017 for invocation of cancellation of the GST Registration. However, the respondent no.4 issued a show-cause notice bearing reference no. ZA180225010678J dated 11.02.2025 requiring the petitioner to show-cause as to why his application seeking revocation of cancellation of registration shall not be rejected and by order dated 12.03.2025 his application was rejected. 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.
Learned counsel for the 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 on record have also been perused.
The petitioner is engaged in execution of works contract. Under the GST regime, the petitioner was required to pay the necessary dues under the CGST or SGST as the case may be or both. These statutory dues are required to be Page No.# 4/5 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 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 petitioner. 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.
Page No.# 5/5 1049/2023, WP(C) No.5181/2023 and WP(C) No.6366/2023. 9. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 07.12.2024 and 12.03.2025 are hereby interfered with and set aside. It is directed that the concerned respondent 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 stand 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.