Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Ratul Boro, a registered assessee under the CGST Act, 2017, is challenging an order dated 17.05.2024 cancelling his GST registration. The cancellation was initiated due to non-submission of returns, for which a Show Cause Notice was issued on 05.02.2024. The petitioner claims the Show Cause Notice and the cancellation order were vague, lacking specific reasons under Section 29 of the CGST Act. He also stated he was unaware of the cancellation until he attempted to enroll in government schemes. Upon learning of the cancellation, the petitioner filed returns seeking revocation, but the GST portal disallowed it due to the expiry of the 270-day timeline for filing revocation applications.

Held

The Court held that the issue in the present case is no longer res integra, referencing its prior judgment in Motaleb Bhuyan Vs. The State of Assam and Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1429). Finding the facts of the instant case to be similar to those in Motaleb Bhuyan, the Court concluded that the petitioner is entitled to similar reliefs. Consequently, the order of cancellation of registration dated 17.05.2024 was set aside and quashed. The petitioner was directed to file all pending returns within 30 days from the order's date. The 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 as per Section 44. The petitioner was also held liable to pay arrears including tax, penalty, interest, and late fees.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Show Cause Notice dated 05.02.2024 and the cancellation order dated 17.05.2024 are liable to be set aside for being vague and lacking specific reasons as required under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that both the Show Cause Notice and the cancellation order failed to provide specific reasons for the cancellation, making them vague and non-compliant with Section 29 of the CGST Act. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in this regard. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to revocation of GST registration despite the expiry of the 270-day timeline for filing the revocation application, given the circumstances? The petitioner contended that the GST portal's rejection of his revocation application due to the expired timeline was unjust, especially as he was unaware of the cancellation and sought to rectify the situation promptly. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in this regard.