Tayum Roma vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tayum Roma, operating as M/s L and L Enterprises, had his GST registration cancelled by the Superintendent, CGST, Itanagar Zone-II, on February 8, 2021, for failure to file GST returns since July 2020. The petitioner subsequently filed all pending returns and paid applicable late fees and penalties up to February 2021. However, he could not apply for revocation of cancellation due to the expiry of the prescribed and condonable periods. An appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected on January 17, 2025, citing the absence of provisions for condoning delays beyond the stipulated time. This writ petition was filed challenging the cancellation order.
Held
The Court set aside the order dated February 8, 2021, passed by the Superintendent, CGST, Itanagar Zone-II, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration. The Court's decision was based on the similarity of the present case to previous orders passed by a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court in WP(C) 70(AP)/2025 and WP(C) 7057(AP)/2024. The Court granted relief conditionally. The Superintendent was directed to intimate the petitioner of his total statutory outstanding dues, including penalties and fines, as of the cancellation date and up to the restoration date. The petitioner is required to pay these dues within 21 days of receiving the intimation. Upon proof of timely payment, the Superintendent will revoke the cancellation order and restore the GST registration. The issue of condoning delays beyond prescribed periods was implicitly addressed by the Court's willingness to grant relief based on subsequent compliance and precedent.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court can direct the revocation of GST registration cancellation, despite the expiry of the statutory period for revocation and appeal, given the petitioner's subsequent compliance and payment of dues? The petitioner argued that he has now filed all pending returns and paid all dues, including late fees and penalties, up to February 2021. He relied on a previous order of the same High Court in WP(C) 70(AP)/2025 (Ms. Yassung Yangfo v. Union of India & 2 Ors.) which directed revocation subject to payment of dues. The petitioner also referred to another order in WP(C) 7057(AP)/2024 (Krishanu Borthakur v. Union of India). The respondent revenue authorities, represented by the standing counsel for CGST, did not dispute that the present case was similar to the cited precedents.
Sections Cited
Section 107(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
Date : 02.04.2025 Heard Mr. S.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Tony Meto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 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. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he is registered under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for his firm under the name and style of M/s. L&L Enterprises. The petitioner admits that since July, 2020, the petitioner could not file the GST returns. Therefore, the respondent no.3 after issuance of a show-cause notice, cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner’s firm vide an order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Superintendent, Itanagar Zone-II.
The petitioner claims that in December, 2024, the petitioner has filed all his pending GST returns till February, 2021 and it is claimed that the petitioner is also paid all the late fine and penalty as applicable as on February, 2021. The petitioner could not apply for revocation of the cancellation order as the prescribed period of limitation and condonable period has already expired. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise and Customs under Section 107(1) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. However, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the Order-In-Appeal No. 65/GHY(A)/JC/GSTP/ITA/2025 dated 17.01.2025, amongst others, on the ground that there is no provision in the CGST Act, 2017 to condone any delay beyond the prescribed stipulated time under the CGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.02.2021 passed
Page No.# 3/4 by the Superintendent, CGST, Itanagar Zone-II.
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. 6. Having 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.ZA120221006062O dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Superintendent, CGST, Itanagar Zone-II Range is hereby set aside. The Court is inclined to pass the following conditional orders: i. The Superintendent, CGST, Itanagar Zone-II (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. L&L Enterprises till the date of cancellation of the GST registration and any penalty and fine as may be found due as on the date of restoration of Page No.# 4/4 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 within time allowed being submitted, the respondent no.3 will pass an appropriate order to revoke the order dated 08.02.2021 bearing reference No. ZA120221006062O 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.