Dipankar Borgohain vs. The Union Of INDIA And 7 Ors

Held

The Court held that the facts of the present case are similar to those in the case of Motaleb Bhuyan Vs. The State Of Assam And Ors. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to similar reliefs. The order of cancellation of registration dated April 22, 2024, was set aside and quashed. The petitioner is directed to file all pending returns from the date of failure to file until the present date within 30 days of the order. The period stipulated in Section 73(10)/74(10) of the CGST Act/AGST Act will be computed from the date of this order, except for the financial year 2026-27, which will follow Section 44. The petitioner is also liable to pay arrears of tax, penalty, interest, and late fees. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Dipankar Borgohain, operating a construction business under SSAD INFA LLP, challenges the cancellation of his GST registration dated April 22, 2024. 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 contends the show cause notice and the cancellation order were vague, lacking specific reasons under Section 29 of the CGST Act. He also claims the notice was only uploaded to the portal and not served manually, and he was unaware of the proceedings until the reply period had expired. An application for revocation of cancellation was rejected due to the expiry of the 270-day timeline.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of cancellation of registration dated April 22, 2024, is liable to be set aside on the grounds of vagueness and lack of proper service of the show cause notice, contrary to Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the show cause notice and the cancellation order failed to provide specific reasons as mandated by Section 29 of the CGST Act, rendering them vague. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the notice was not properly served manually, but only uploaded to the common portal, which he, being unfamiliar with, missed. This lack of proper service, coupled with the vagueness, led to the petitioner being unaware of the proceedings until the time for response had passed. The petitioner also highlighted that their subsequent application for revocation was rejected solely on the ground of the statutory timeline expiring. The respondents did not record any arguments in the judgment.