Natuk Mra vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by the precedent set in Rakhe Achi Vs. Union of India & Ors. (WP(C)179(AP)/2026). The reasoning was that the facts and circumstances presented by the petitioner were similar to those in the cited case, where a coordinate bench had granted relief. The Court found that the petitioner, despite being a businessman, faced circumstances leading to non-filing of returns and subsequent cancellation of registration, and that a similar conditional approach as in the precedent case was warranted. The ratio decidendi is that when a taxpayer faces genuine difficulties leading to non-compliance and the issue is identical to a previously decided case granting conditional relief, similar relief should be extended. The Court directed the Superintendent of CGST to intimate the petitioner of all outstanding statutory dues until the date of cancellation. Upon payment of these dues within 21 days of intimation, the Superintendent is to revoke the cancellation order dated December 25, 2025, and restore the petitioner's GST registration.

Facts

The petitioner, Natuk Mra, operating as M/s N.Mra Enterprises, was registered under the GST Act, 2017, from February 7, 2019. Initially, he filed GST returns, but due to financial difficulties and business non-operation, he failed to file returns for a continuous period of six months. A system-generated Show Cause Notice dated November 15, 2025, was issued, to which the petitioner, unaware due to reliance on third-party agents, did not respond. Consequently, his GST registration was suspended and subsequently cancelled by the Superintendent of CGST, Itanagar Range, via an order dated December 25, 2025. The petitioner discovered the cancellation later and found he could only file returns up to November 2025, being unable to file subsequent returns or discharge liabilities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration is liable to be revoked, considering the petitioner's inability to respond to the Show Cause Notice due to lack of awareness and the expiry of statutory periods for revocation and appeal? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was passed after the statutory period for revocation and appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, had expired, leaving him without recourse. He relied on a previous order of this Court in Rakhe Achi Vs. Union of India & Ors. (WP(C)179(AP)/2026), where a similar conditional order for revocation was granted, submitting his case was squarely covered by this precedent. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, including the Union of India, the Commissioner of Tax and Excise, Arunachal Pradesh, and the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, fairly submitted that the issue was similar to previously decided matters, including Rakhe Achi (supra).