Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Sonu Ahuja, proprietor of M/s KCA Infrastructure engaged in works contract services and registered under GSTIN 12AAHPA4001C1ZY, had his GST registration cancelled by order dated 20.04.2024 for non-filing of returns for a continuous six-month period, attributed to his tax consultant's negligence. A show cause notice dated 07.12.2023 had suspended the registration; the petitioner did not respond in time and could not later apply for revocation as the time limit for such application had already elapsed, though he subsequently updated his returns up to April 2024. He relied on the Court's own decision in Dhirghat Hardware Stores & Anr. v. Union of India (WP(C) No.5944/2025, decided 17.10.2025), granting similar relief to a similarly situated petitioner.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a petitioner whose GST registration was cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act for non-filing of returns, and who could not apply for revocation within the ordinary time limit, could be given a further opportunity to seek restoration on complying with the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The default was attributable to the petitioner's tax consultant's negligence, not any wilful conduct.
  • The petitioner was ready and willing to comply with all formalities under the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, including filing pending returns and paying tax, interest and late fees.
  • The case was squarely covered by the Court's own decision in Dhirghat Hardware Stores & Anr., which granted identical relief on similar facts and law.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Learned Standing Counsel for Central Excise and Customs fairly conceded that Dhirghat Hardware Stores, being rendered on similar facts and law, would cover the present case as well.

Court Order / Findings

  • Reproducing the reasoning in Dhirghat Hardware Stores, the Court reiterated that the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules permits the proper officer to drop cancellation proceedings if the registrant furnishes all pending returns and makes full payment of tax dues with interest and late fee.
  • Since cancellation of registration entails serious civil consequences, and the present case was found similarly situated to Dhirghat Hardware Stores and a further coordinate-bench case (Masuk Ahmed Barbhuiya v. Union of India), the Court held the petitioner was entitled to similar relief.
  • The petitioner was directed to approach the concerned authority within 60 days seeking restoration, complying with Rule 22(4)'s proviso; on compliance, the authority shall consider restoration in accordance with law, with the limitation period under Section 73(10) computed afresh from the date of this order (except for FY 2024-25, governed by Section 44).
  • The petitioner remains liable to pay all arrears of tax, penalty, interest and late fees.
  • The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Important Clarification

Even after the ordinary window to apply for revocation of a GST registration cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) for non-filing of returns has lapsed, a registrant who is willing to furnish all pending returns and pay tax, interest, penalty and late fees in full may still approach the writ court for a further, time-bound opportunity to seek restoration under the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules — this is now a well-settled coordinate-bench practice, particularly where the default is attributable to a tax consultant's lapse rather than the registrant's own conduct.

Sections Involved

  • Section 29(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 – cancellation of registration for failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months.
  • Rule 22, CGST Rules, 2017 – procedure for cancellation of registration, with the proviso to sub-rule (4) permitting the proper officer to drop proceedings on filing of pending returns and full payment of dues.
  • Section 73(10), CGST Act, 2017 – limitation period for determination of tax, relevant to post-restoration compliance.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee — the petitioner was granted a further opportunity to seek restoration of registration, conditional on full compliance with Rule 22(4)'s proviso and payment of all arrears.

Case Details

Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench; WP(C)/164/2026; Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kardak Ete; Order dated 10.04.2026; CNR: GAHC040005202026.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.