Mr Masuk Ahmed Barbhuiya vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to seek restoration of his GST registration under the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. This proviso allows for the dropping of proceedings if the person furnishes all pending returns and makes full payment of tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee, even after a show-cause notice for cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) of the Act. The Court noted that cancellation of registration entails serious civil consequences. Relying on a previous judgment in Dhirghat Hardware Stores, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority within 60 days from the date of the order, seeking restoration of his GST registration. Upon submission of the application and compliance with all requirements under the proviso to Rule 22(4), the authority is to consider the application for restoration in accordance with law and take necessary steps expeditiously. The Court further clarified that the period stipulated under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act/State GST Act shall be computed from the date of the instant order, except for the financial year 2024-25. The petitioner is liable to pay all arrears, including tax, penalty, interest, and late fees.

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Masuk Ahmed Barbhuiya, engaged in works contract services, had his GST registration cancelled by the Superintendent, CGST, Hailakandi Range, via an order dated 15.07.2025. This cancellation followed a show-cause notice issued on 12.06.2024, citing non-filing of GST returns for six continuous months. The petitioner attributed this default to his tax consultant's negligence. An appeal against the cancellation was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) CGST on 20.11.2025. The petitioner subsequently found himself unable to file an application for revocation of cancellation due to the elapsed time limit, despite having updated his GST returns up to July 2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek restoration of his GST registration despite the cancellation order and the dismissal of his appeal, considering the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he was ready and willing to comply with all formalities as per the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. He relied on a previous judgment of a Coordinate Bench in Dhirghat Hardware Stores & Anr. Vs. Union of India & 3 Ors. (WP(C) No. 5944/2025) where similar relief was granted. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the CGST fairly submitted that the case of Dhirghat Hardware Stores (supra) was rendered on similar facts and law and would cover the present petitioner's case.