Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Saraswati Phukan, a registered assessee under the CGST Act, 2017, had her GST registration cancelled on April 10, 2024, due to non-submission of returns. A show cause notice was issued on October 11, 2023, stating the registration would be suspended. The petitioner claims she was unaware of the cancellation until she attempted to enroll in government schemes. Upon learning of the cancellation, she filed returns seeking revocation, but the GST portal disallowed it due to the expiry of the 270-day time limit for filing revocation applications. The petitioner then approached the High Court via a writ petition.
Held
The Court held that the issue was no longer res integra, referencing its prior decision in Motaleb Bhuyan Vs. The State of Assam and Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1429). The Court found the facts of the present case to be similar to those in the cited precedent. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the order of cancellation of registration dated April 10, 2024. The petitioner was directed to file all pending returns within 30 days of the order. The time period stipulated in Section 73(10)/74(10) of the CGST Act, 2017/AGST Act, 2017, was to be computed from the date of the instant order, with an exception for the financial year 2026-27. The petitioner was also directed to pay arrears of tax, penalty, interest, and late fees.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order of cancellation of registration dated April 10, 2024, is liable to be set aside on the grounds that it was passed without assigning any reasons as required under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the show cause notice dated October 11, 2023, was vague as it did not specify the reasons for cancellation under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017. Furthermore, the final order of cancellation dated April 10, 2024, also failed to provide any reasons. The petitioner also argued that she had no knowledge of the cancellation until much later. Revenue's arguments: The revenue did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's claims regarding the lack of reasons or knowledge in the provided text. However, they were represented by counsel and defended the action taken.
Sections Cited
Section 29, Section 39, Section 73(10), Section 74(10), Section 44
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010232852026
2026:GAU-AS:15753
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5753/2026 SARASWATI PHUKAN WIFE OF RIJU PHUKAN, RESIDENT OF BOKAJAN TOWN WARD NO-1, BOKAJAN BAZAR, P.O.- BOKAJAN, P.S.- BOKAJAN, DIST- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM-782480 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY BY THE SECRETARY OF GOVERMENT OF INDIA , MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI 110001 2:The Principal Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tex KAR BHAWAN GUWAHATI ASSAM 3:THE JURI ICTION OFFICER SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX CBIC GUWAHATI-D-1 DIPHU RANGE 4:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY COMMISSIONER AND SEC TO GOVT OF ASSAM DEPT OF FINANCE AND TAXATION DISPUR ASSAM
Page No.# 2/6 5:The Principal Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax KAR BHAWAN GUWAHATI ASSA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Advocate for the petitioner (s) : Ms. B. Sarmah, Advocate
Advocate for the respondent (s): Mr. S. C. Keyal, Sr. Advocate & SC, Cen
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.