Alhanney Guest House vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that the facts of the present case were similar to those in the case of Motaleb Bhuyan Vs. The State Of Assam And Ors. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to similar reliefs. The Court quashed and set aside the order of cancellation of registration dated 09.12.2024. The petitioner was directed to file all pending returns within 30 days from the date 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 as per Section 44. The petitioner was also held liable to pay arrears of tax, penalty, interest, and late fees. The issue regarding the rejection of the revocation application due to suspension was implicitly addressed by setting aside the cancellation order and directing the petitioner to file returns.

Facts

The petitioner, Alhanney Guest House, a proprietorship firm registered under the CGST Act, 2017 and AGST Act, 2017, approached the Gauhati High Court challenging the order dated 09.12.2024 cancelling its GST registration. The cancellation was based on the non-submission of returns as required by Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. A show cause notice was issued on 06.11.2024, also stating that the GST registration would be suspended from that date. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice and the cancellation order were vague, lacking specific reasons. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed non-receipt of the show cause notice, as it was only uploaded on the portal and not served manually, leading to the expiry of the reply and hearing period without the petitioner's knowledge. An application for revocation of cancellation was rejected on the ground that the GST was suspended.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice and the order of cancellation of registration are liable to be set aside for being vague and lacking 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 proposed action, making them unsustainable. The revenue did not appear to have made any specific arguments on this point as recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the cancellation of registration is vitiated by non-service of the show cause notice to the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the notice was only uploaded on the portal and not served manually, leading to a lack of knowledge and opportunity to respond. The revenue did not appear to have made any specific arguments on this point as recorded in the judgment. 3. Whether the rejection of the revocation application was justified on the ground of suspension of GST? The petitioner challenged this rejection, and the court considered this in light of previous judgments.