Shivan Dakpe vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shivan Dakpe, operating as M/s RSSS Enterprises, faced GST registration cancellation due to a six-month non-filing of returns attributed to health issues. A show cause notice was issued on 27.05.2023 by the Superintendent, GST, Itanagar Range, suspending the registration. As no reply was filed by the petitioner, the registration was cancelled. The petitioner's subsequent attempt to revoke the cancellation online was unsuccessful due to the expiry of the limitation period. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court, challenging the cancellation order and seeking relief, as the appellate authority's power to condone delay was limited.
Held
The Court held that the Superintendent, GST, Itanagar Range, was the appropriate authority to deal with the matter, accepting the petitioner's explanation regarding the jurisdictional aspect. The Court noted that the present case was similar to previous writ petitions (WP(C) 70(AP)/2025 and WP(C) 7057(AP)/2024) where similar conditional orders were passed. Consequently, the order of cancellation of GST registration dated 27.05.2023 was set aside. The Court directed the Superintendent, GST, Itanagar Range, to intimate the petitioner of all statutory outstanding dues and penalties as of the date of restoration. The petitioner was given 21 days from the date of intimation to make the payment. Upon proof of payment, the Superintendent was to revoke the cancellation order and restore the GST registration. The issue of the petitioner's inability to file for revocation due to the lapsed limitation period was implicitly resolved by this conditional restoration.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Superintendent of CGST, Itanagar Range, had the correct jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice and cancellation order for GST registration, considering the petitioner's business was located in Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that while the order of cancellation mentioned the Superintendent, Daporijo, the order was generated from the Itanagar Range. Furthermore, the Itanagar Range now has jurisdiction over the Upper Subansiri District, making the Superintendent, Itanagar Range, the appropriate authority. Revenue's argument: The learned standing counsel for the respondent CGST did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the similarity of the present case to a previously decided matter and implicitly accepted the jurisdiction argument by not opposing it.
Sections Cited
CGST Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 04.04.2025 Heard Mr. T. Dodung, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI appearing for respondent no.1 and Mr. M.K. Boro, learned standing counsel for CGST and Central Excise, representing respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. The matter was listed on 02.04.2025, however, on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the Superintendent of CGST, Daporijo, but the Superintendent of CGST, Itanagar Range is made as respondent No. 3, the order passed on 02.04.2025 was recalled at the time when the transcription of the dictation was being checked. The matter has been brought on board today by way of mention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although, the order for cancellation of registration was passed by the Superintendent of GST, Daporijo, but at present, the Itanagar Range has juri iction over the area covered by the districts of Papum Pare, Kurung Kumay, Kra Daddi, Lower Subsansiri and Upper Subansiri of State of Arunachal Pradesh. Therefore, the establishment of the petitioner, being situated at Daporijo, which is under Upper Subansiri District, the authority who is now required to do the needful would be the Superintendent GST, Itanagar Range.
It is also submitted that in the order of cancellation of registration, although the Superintendent, Daporijo is mentioned, the place where the order of cancellation was generated on 27.05.2023 is shown as Itanagar Range.
Page No.# 3/5
The explanation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is supported by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Accordingly, the said explanation is accepted.
In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of business/trade under the trade name of M/s. RSSS Enterprises. Due to prolong health issues, the petitioner was unable to file his GST Returns for 6(six) months. Consequently, on 02.02.2023, the respondent No. 3 had issued a show cause notice bearing Reference No. ZA120523006204C dated 27.05.2023, passed by the Superintendent, GST, Itanagar Range, asking the petitioner to explain why his GST registration should not be cancelled. By the same notice, he was also informed that his GST was suspended with immediate effect. Since the petitioner did not submit any reply by 27.05.2023, the respondent No. 3 cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner. After the cancellation, the petitioner attempted to apply for revocation under the Central Goods and Services, 2017, however, by that the limitation period prescribed under the act has already been lapsed. As a result, the petitioner was unable to file an application for revocation through the online portal. Being aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It is submitted that since the order of cancellation of GST was passed on 27.05.2023, and the time limit for filing the appeal has already been elapsed and the appellate Authority having not been vested with the power and juri iction to condone the delay beyond one month after the expiry of 3(three) months, the petitioner having no other alternative has decided to approach this Page No.# 4/5 Court directly instead of preferring the appeal.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by this Court in WP(C) 70(AP)/2025 in the matter of Ms. Yassung Yangfo v. Union of India & 2 Ors., by which this Court had passed conditional order for directing the respondent authorities to revoke the cancellation of the GST registration, subject to complete payment of all the dues.
On a query of this Court, the learned standing counsel for the GST has not disputed the projection that the present case is similar to the one which has been disposed of by order dated 24.02.2025 passed by this Court in WP(C) 70(AP)/2025. 10. Thus, it is seen that a similar order has already been passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Cout including order dated 03.01.2025, passed in WP(C) 7057(AP)/2024 in the matter of Krishanu Borthakur v. Union of India.
Accordingly, in light of the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by this Court in WP(C) 70(AP)/2025 and order dated 03.01.2025 passed in WP(C) 7057(AP)/2024, and subject to conditions hereinafter provided, the order bearing Reference No. ZA120523006204C dated 27.05.2023 passed by the Superintendent, GST, Itanagar Range is hereby set aside. The Court is inclined to pass the following conditional orders: i. The Superintendent, GST, Itanagar Range (respondent no.3), will intimate the petitioner his total statutory outstanding dues, if any, in the name of the petitioner having trade name of M/s. RSSS Enterprises till the date of cancellation of the GST registration and any Page No.# 5/5 penalty and fine as may be found due as on the date of restoration of the GST registration so as to enable the petitioner to make payment of the entire statutory dues under CGST Act by the petitioner. ii. The petitioner shall make the payment of the due within 21(twenty one) days from the date of receipt of intimation. iii. Upon a proof of payment made within time allowed being submitted, the respondent no.3 will pass an appropriate order to revoke the order dated 27.05.2023 bearing Reference No. ZA120523006204C and thereby restore the GST registration of the petitioner.
Accordingly, with the aforesaid conditional order, this writ petition stands disposed of.
The parties are left to bear their own cost. 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.