Ramniwas Roj vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors

WP(C)/146/2025HC GauhatiGSTCNR GAHC04000499202501 April 2025Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Ramniwas Roj, operating as M/s Shri Ram Construction Company, failed to file GST returns after December 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected his business and caused him to return to his native village. Subsequently, his GST registration was cancelled by the Superintendent, GST, Pasighat, via an order dated 27.05.2023. Upon returning in May 2024, the petitioner found his registration cancelled. He claims to have filed all pending returns and paid late fees and penalties but was unable to apply for revocation due to expired limitation periods under Section 30 of the CGST Act. His appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed on 16.01.2025.

Held

The Court held that the present case is similar to previous cases decided by the High Court, specifically WP(C) 70(AP)/2025 and WP(C) 7057(AP)/2024. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the circumstances, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, warranted consideration. Consequently, the order of cancellation of GST registration dated 27.05.2023 passed by the Superintendent, GST, Pasighat, was set aside. The Court directed the Superintendent, GST, Pasighat, to intimate the petitioner of his total statutory outstanding dues, including penalties and fines, as of the date of cancellation. The petitioner is required to pay these dues within 21 days of receiving the intimation. Upon proof of payment, the Superintendent will revoke the cancellation order and restore the GST registration. The ratio decidendi is that in exceptional circumstances, such as those caused by a pandemic, and where the taxpayer has taken steps to regularize their compliance, the High Court can direct the revocation of GST registration cancellation, subject to payment of all dues, even if the statutory period for revocation has expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration, despite the petitioner having filed pending returns and paid penalties, and facing limitations under Section 30 of the CGST Act, warrants revocation, considering the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner argued that his business was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to his inability to file returns. He contended that he has since filed all pending returns and paid penalties. He relied on a previous order of the High Court in WP(C) 70(AP)/2025 (Ms. Yassung Yangfo v. Union of India & 2 Ors.) which conditionally directed revocation of GST registration upon payment of dues. The respondent revenue authorities, represented by the learned standing counsel for GST, did not dispute the similarity of the present case to the one disposed of by the Court's previous order. They did not present any counter-arguments beyond acknowledging the precedent.

Sections Cited

Section 30

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040004992025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/146/2025 Ramniwas Roj Son of Bhanwar Roj, resident of Taggu Apartment, Near Solung Ground, Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh 791102 and carrying on a proprietorship business in the trade name of M/s Shri Ram Construction Company. VERSUS The Union of India and 2 Ors represented by the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), North Block, New Delhi. 2:The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Itanagar Age: 0 Occupation : Sector A Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax Age: 0 Occupation : Pasighat Range Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Eddie Payeng, Shantanu Kumar Sarma Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, M K Boro,DSGI Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

ORDER 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 his business/trade under the trade name of M/s. Shri Ram Construction Company was severely affected due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and therefore, he went back to his native village in the State of Rajasthan and could not file his GST return after December, 2021. Subsequently, after issuance of a show cause notice, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled vide order under Reference No. ZA120523006082C dated 27.05.2023 passed by the Superintendent, GST, Pasighat.

The petitioner claims that when he returned back to resume his business in the month of May, 2024, he found that his GST registration was cancelled. The petitioner claims that he has filed all his pending GST returns till May, 2023 and also paid the late fine and penalties. However, as the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 30 of the CGST Act including the extendable period had expired, the petitioner could not apply for revocation of the cancellation of his registration.

Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise and Customs. However, the said appeal was dismissed by Order-In-Appeal No. 57/GHY(A)/JC/GSTP/ITA/2025 dated

Page No.# 3/4 16.01.2025. 5. 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. 7. 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. ZA120523006082C dated 27.05.2023 passed by the Superintendent, GST, Pasighat is hereby set aside. The Court is inclined to pass the following conditional orders: i. The Superintendent, GST, Pasighat (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. Shri Ram Construction Company till the date of cancellation of the GST

Page No.# 4/4 registration and any 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. ZA120523006082C and thereby restore the GST registration of the petitioner.

Accordingly, with the aforesaid conditional order, this writ petition stands disposed of.

10.

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.