Facts of the Case

Kipa Tapu, proprietor of "TOSD Enterprise" (GSTIN 12BRIPT2656K1ZG), had his GST registration cancelled by order dated 30.05.2025 under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 for non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months, pursuant to a show-cause notice dated 16.04.2025. Being unfamiliar with the online procedure, the petitioner learnt of the notice and order only after the reply and hearing windows had closed, and by the time he attempted to file an application for revocation of cancellation, the 270-day statutory window for doing so had already lapsed, as reflected in a portal message. He had since updated all pending returns up to March 2025 and discharged all GST dues along with late fee and interest, and approached the Gauhati High Court seeking restoration of his registration.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a taxpayer whose GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns, and who has since cleared all pending returns and dues but missed the 270-day statutory window for filing a revocation application, has any remaining remedy.
  2. Whether the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules offers an alternate route for restoration outside the ordinary revocation timeline.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Was ready and willing to comply with all formalities required under the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
  • Relied on similarly-situated cases decided by the same High Court (W.P.(C) No. 2244/2024 and Jinny Daimary vs. State of Assam, W.P.(C) No. 3572/2025) granting comparable relief.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Represented by the DSGI for the Union and standing counsel for CGST; no independent objection is recorded to the relief sought once the applicable rule was placed before the Court.

Court Order / Findings

  • Examining Section 29(2)(c) and Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, the Court noted that the proviso to Rule 22(4) permits the proper officer, even outside the ordinary revocation process, to drop cancellation proceedings and pass an order in Form GST REG-20 where the person furnishes all pending returns and makes full payment of tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee.
  • Given that cancellation of registration entails serious civil consequences, the Court held the petitioner could approach the empowered officer directly, furnishing all pending returns and paying the dues in full, and the officer would then have the authority and jurisdiction to drop the proceedings and restore the registration in the prescribed form.
  • The writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the concerned authority within two months seeking restoration, with the process to be completed within a further 60 days; it was clarified that the limitation period under Section 73(10) would run from the date of this order (except for FY 2025-26, governed by Section 44), and the petitioner remained liable for all arrears of tax, penalty, interest and late fees.

Important Clarification

  • Even where the 270-day statutory window to apply for revocation of a cancelled GST registration has lapsed, the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules offers a distinct route back into the GST system.
  • The proper officer can still drop the cancellation and restore registration in Form GST REG-20 if the taxpayer furnishes all pending returns and pays the tax dues, interest and late fee in full — courts are directing taxpayers to this route rather than leaving them without remedy, while ensuring the limitation clock for any future demand runs afresh from the date of restoration.

Sections Involved

  • Section 29(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 — power to cancel registration for non-filing of returns for a continuous prescribed period.
  • Rule 22, CGST Rules, 2017 — procedure for cancellation of registration, including the proviso to sub-rule (4) permitting the proper officer to drop cancellation proceedings on full compliance.
  • Section 73(10), CGST Act, 2017 — limitation for passing an order, clarified to run afresh from the date of this order.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the assessee procedurally. While the writ petition did not directly restore the registration, it opened and directed a concrete restoration pathway under Rule 22(4) that the department was directed to act upon.

Case Details

Court: Gauhati High Court (Itanagar Bench)
Case No.: WP(C)/369/2026
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair
Date of Order: 07-08-2026

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.