Smti Gollo Sarah vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Smti Gollo Sarah, operating a construction business as M/s Sml Builders and Co. in Arunachal Pradesh, was registered under the GST Act, 2017. Due to financial difficulties and lack of business operation, she failed to file GST returns for six consecutive months. A system-generated show cause notice was issued on 15.10.2025, requiring a reply within 30 days and appearance before the jurisdictional officer on 12.11.2025. Her GST registration was suspended and subsequently cancelled by Respondent No. 3 effective 15.10.2025. The petitioner, unaware of the filing process and unable to check the GST portal, missed the deadlines for filing default returns. She also missed the statutory deadlines for applying for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act and for filing an appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner, being similarly situated to the petitioner in WP(C) No. 380/2026, should be granted similar relief. The reasoning was based on the precedent set in the earlier writ petition, which allowed a party to rectify their defaults despite missing statutory deadlines. The Court directed the Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax (Respondent No. 4) to inform the petitioner of her outstanding statutory dues, including penalties and fines, as of the date of cancellation of her GST registration. The petitioner was given 21 days from the date of intimation to pay these dues. Upon proof of payment, Respondent No. 3 was directed to revoke the cancellation order dated 24.11.2025 and restore the petitioner's GST registration. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, having missed the statutory timelines for revocation of GST registration cancellation and appeal, is entitled to an opportunity to rectify her default, considering her circumstances? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 30 and Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that she lacked the technical know-how for filing GST returns and relied on GST agents/Chartered Accountants. She argued that she was unaware of the portal and missed the deadlines for revocation and appeal. She cited a similar case, WP(C) No. 380/2026 (Gangte Togung v. The Union of India and two others), where the Court granted relief to a similarly situated person, allowing them to submit penalties and fines and directing the revocation of GST registration cancellation. Revenue's arguments: The respondents (Nos. 3 and 4) submitted that a similar order could be passed, provided the petitioner paid all outstanding penalties and fines.