Jenia Namchoom vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Jenia Namchoom, operating as M/s FRAA TAKA INFRATECH, challenged an order dated 04.05.2024 by the Superintendent of Central Goods and Services Tax, Namsai Range, cancelling his GST registration. The petitioner attributed the non-filing of GST returns for over six months to illness. Upon resuming business in March 2025, he discovered the cancellation. He subsequently filed all pending returns up to May 2024 and paid taxes and penalties. However, his application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, read with Rule 23(1) of the CGST Rules, was rejected due to the expiry of the limitation period. An appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was also dismissed as time-barred. The petitioner relied on a previous High Court order in a similar case.
Held
The Court interfered with the impugned cancellation order dated 04.05.2024 and set it aside. The Court directed the Superintendent of Central Goods and Services Tax to intimate the petitioner if any statutory dues were pending. Upon payment of any such dues, the Superintendent is to pass an appropriate order to restore the petitioner's GST registration. This exercise was to be completed within two weeks of the order's receipt, with the petitioner required to furnish a certified copy within one week. The Court's reasoning was based on the submissions of both parties, the facts and circumstances on record, and a similar order passed by a Coordinate Bench in a previous case (Ms Yassung Yangfo vs. Union of India), which itself relied on another High Court decision (Krishanu Borthakur vs. Union of India). The Court found merit in granting similar relief to the petitioner. No issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for more than six months, despite subsequent filing and payment of dues, is sustainable when the petitioner attributes non-compliance to illness and seeks restoration under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 23(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, particularly when the limitation period for revocation has expired? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that due to illness, he could not file returns. He has since filed all pending returns and paid dues. He contended that the cancellation order should be set aside, and his registration restored, citing a precedent from a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court in Ms Yassung Yangfo vs. Union of India (WP(C) No. 70/2025) where similar relief was granted. He also argued that the denial of revocation application due to limitation was unjust given the circumstances. Revenue's arguments: The respondent revenue did not controvert the petitioner's submissions.
Sections Cited
Section 30, Rule 23(1), Section 107(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 27.05.2025
Heard Mr. S.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.K. Boro, learned standing counsel for the respondents in the CGST.
In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.05.2024, passed by the respondent No. 3/Superintendent of Central Goods and Services Tax, Namsai Range, Namsai, Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled.
Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been carrying on business of work contract services under the name and style of M/s FRAA TAKA INFRATECH and on account of his illness, he could not file his GST returns for a continuous period of more than six months, and thereafter, the respondent No. 3 had issued a show cause notice to him and his GST registration was cancelled. Mr. Sarma also submits that the petitioner came to know about cancellation of his GST registration only when he resumed his business work on the later part of March, 2025, and thereafter, he immediately filed his pending GST returns till May, 2024 i.e. the month in which his registration was cancelled and also paid all the taxes and late fines/penalties payable thereon, however, he was not permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation of his registration under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 23(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as the limitation period including the extended period had already expired. Mr. Sarma further submits that thereafter, the petitioner had preferred one appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)
Page No.# 3/4 also perused the impugned order dated 04.05.2024, annexed as Annexure-3 in this petition.
I have also perused Annexure-4 Colly, which indicates that the petitioner Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 7057/2024 (Krishanu Page No.# 4/4
Mr. Boro, learned standing counsel for the respondents in the CGST submits that he has no objection in the event of passing similar order in the present petition also.
Taking note of the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, the impugned cancellation order dated 04.05.2024 (Annexure-3 of this petition) is interfered with and accordingly, the same stands set aside and quashed. The respondent No. 3 is directed to intimate the petitioner if any statutory dues are pending and if any such dues are pending, then upon payment of the said dues, the respondent No. 3 will pass appropriate order to restore the GST registration of the petitioner.
The aforesaid exercise has to be carried out within period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent No. 3 within a period of one week from today.
In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of at this motion stage itself. 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.