Devendra Singh Rathore vs. CGST And Cx And Anr

WP(C)/209/2025HC GauhatiGSTCNR GAHC04000722202502 June 2025Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner, Devendra Singh Rathore, operated a wood-based factory in Arunachal Pradesh. The factory was non-functional for approximately one year between 2023 and 2024 due to insufficient raw material supply. The petitioner claims he never received a show-cause notice dated 11.10.2023, despite which his GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 04.12.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner paid Rs. 2,74,225/- for delayed filing of GST returns, with payments received by the authorities on 19.03.2025 and 24.03.2025. A representation for revocation of the cancellation order was submitted but received no response. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking restoration of his GST registration.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned cancellation order dated 04.12.2023. The Court noted that the petitioner had paid the GST along with the fine for delayed filing of returns, and this payment was received by the respondent authorities. The Court directed the respondent authorities to verify if any further amount was due from the petitioner. If any amount was found to be due, the petitioner was to be notified, and upon payment of such amount, the respondent authorities were directed to restore the petitioner's GST registration. This exercise was to be completed within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order. The petitioner was required to place the certified copy before the respondent authorities within one week from the date of the order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration was valid, considering the petitioner's claim of not receiving the show-cause notice? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the restoration of his GST registration after paying the dues for delayed filing of returns and submitting a representation? The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was bad in law as he never received the show-cause notice through any prescribed mode (registered post, email, or GST portal). He further contended that he had paid the outstanding GST amount along with a fine for delayed filing, and his subsequent representation for revocation was ignored. The revenue, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, submitted that similar petitions had been disposed of by the Court and had no objection if this petition was disposed of in a similar line.

Sections Cited

None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but the context relates to GST registration cancellation and return filing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040007222025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/209/2025 Devendra Singh Rathore Son of Shri HBS Rathore, Fathegarh Road, C/o Rajputana Hotel Newar Badhour Mandir, Farrkabad District, Uttar Pradesh, presently residing 9 Mile, Rangfrah Wood Industries Changlang, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS CGST and CX and Anr office of the Commissioner, Itanagar CGST Commissionerate, Sector A, Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Superintendent of Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate Age: 0 Occupation : Sector A Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : T Gameh, Rei Mama,Mato Hali Advocate for the Respondent : Tania Kipa, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

ORDER Date : 03.06.2025 Heard Mr. M. Hali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. K. Boro, learned Standing Counsel, CGST & CX, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Page No.# 2/3

Mr. Hali submits that the petitioner herein, has been operating a wood- based factory at 9th mile, Changlang, Arunachal Pradesh, under a lease agreement with the actual proprietor, Shri Thinghaap Taiju. Due to insufficient supply of raw materials, the said factory remained non-functional for almost 1(one) year, during the period 2023 to 2024. Mr. Hali, also submits that the petitioner has not received any notice from the respondent authorities, asking him to file the GST returns, and that the petitioner operates the wood-based industry and relies on GST registration for business operations, including issuing invoices and claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC). However, by the impugned order dated 04.12.2023, the respondent authorities cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner, citing a show-cause notice dated 11.10.2023, which the petitioner had never received in any of the prescribed modes- that is, registered post, email, or through GST portal. Subsequently, the petitioner has paid the GST along with the fine, amounting to a total of Rs.2,74,225/-(Rupees Two lakhs seventy four thousand two hundred and twenty five) only, for delayed filing of the returns vide Annexures-5, 6 and 7, and the payment was received by the respondent authorities on 19.03.2025 and 24.03.2025, and thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation for revocation of the order of cancellation of his GST registration number, but the same has failed to evoke any response from the respondent authorities. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition, praying for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to restore the petitioner’s GST registration, bearing No.GSTIN12AFOPT1605H3ZI, by setting aside the cancellation order dated 04.12.2025. 3. Per contra, Mr. Boro, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, submits that similar petitions have already been disposed of by this Page No.# 3/3 Court, and he has no objection if this Court dispose of this petition in the line of the aforementioned petitions.

Having heard the submissions of learned counsels for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the representation dated 21.04.2025, as well as the Annexures-5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition, which indicates that the petitioner has already paid the amount to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 5. Taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and, also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is inclined to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned cancellation order dated 04.12.2023. The respondent authorities are directed to verify whether any further amount is due from the petitioner and if any amount is found to be due, then the petitioner be notified and on payment of the same, the respondent authorities shall restore the GST registration of the petitioner.

The aforementioned exercise(s) shall be carried out within a period of 2(two) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of 1(one) week from today.

The writ petitions stands disposed of, in terms above.

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.