Tai Tajik vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors

Held

The Court held that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the order passed in WP(C)117(AP)/2025 (Shivan Dakpe Vs. Union of India and Others). The Court reasoned that given the similarity to previously decided matters and the agreement of the parties, the petitioner is entitled to similar relief. The Court directed the Superintendent of Taxes, Itanagar Zone-II, to intimate the petitioner of his total statutory outstanding dues, including any penalty or fine, as of the date of cancellation. The petitioner is then required to pay these dues within 25 days of receiving the intimation. Upon proof of payment, the Superintendent of Taxes will revoke the cancellation order dated 07.03.2022 and restore the petitioner's GST registration. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Tai Tajik, operating M/s Jamoh Enterprises, had his GST registration cancelled by the Superintendent of Taxes, Itanagar Zone-II, via an order dated 07.03.2022. The cancellation was due to the petitioner's failure to file GST returns for a continuous period exceeding one year, following a notice issued by the authority. The petitioner claims he was unable to attend to his business and check his email due to health and other pressing issues, rendering him unaware of the notice and unable to file a reply or defaulted returns. The petitioner approached the High Court directly as the appellate authority's power to condone delay was limited.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-furnishing of returns, without considering the petitioner's reasons for non-compliance, is sustainable in law, particularly in light of the petitioner's inability to respond to the notice due to health issues and lack of awareness? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in similar cases by this Court, specifically the conditional revocation of GST registration upon payment of dues? The petitioner argued that due to ill health, he was out of business and unaware of the notice for non-furnishing of returns, leading to his failure to reply and file defaulted returns. He contended that the appellate authority's limited power to condone delay necessitated approaching the High Court. He relied on a previous order in WP(C)117(AP)/2025 (Shivan Dakpe Vs. Union of India and Others) where a similar conditional order for revocation of GST registration was passed. The respondent authorities, represented by the learned Standing Counsel CGST, fairly submitted that the present case is similar to other cases previously disposed of by the Court, including the Shivan Dakpe case.