Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Dipak Saikia, a registered assessee under the CGST Act, 2017, is challenging the order dated May 17, 2024, cancelling his GST registration. The cancellation was initiated due to non-submission of returns, as required by Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. A Show Cause Notice was issued on February 5, 2024, proposing cancellation and suspending the registration. The petitioner claims the Show Cause Notice and the cancellation order were vague, lacking specific reasons. He only became aware of the cancellation when applying for government schemes. Upon attempting to file returns for revocation, the GST portal disallowed it due to the expiry of the 270-day timeline for filing the revocation application.

Held

The Court held that the issue was no longer res integra, referencing a previous judgment 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 and concluded that the petitioner was entitled to similar reliefs. Consequently, the order of cancellation of registration dated May 17, 2024, was set aside and quashed. The petitioner was directed to file all pending returns within 30 days from the order's date. The time period stipulated in Section 73(10)/74(10) of the CGST Act, 2017/AGST Act, 2017, for recovery proceedings would be computed from the date of the instant order, with an exception for the financial year 2026-27, which would follow Section 44. 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 May 17, 2024, is liable to be set aside on the ground of vagueness and lack of reasons, as contemplated under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to file returns and seek revocation of cancellation of registration despite the expiry of the stipulated timeline, considering the circumstances? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Show Cause Notice dated February 5, 2024, was vague as it did not provide specific reasons for cancellation under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017. Furthermore, the cancellation order dated May 17, 2024, also failed to assign any reasons. The petitioner also argued that he was unaware of the cancellation until he attempted to enroll in government schemes and that the GST portal's rejection of his revocation application due to timeline expiry was unjust given his lack of knowledge.