Facts of the Case: Shri Pankaj Mohan, proprietor of M/s Mohan Electromech and a registered assessee under the CGST Act, 2017/Assam GST Act, 2017 (GSTIN 18BFUPM1376K1ZP), engaged in execution of works contracts, faced cancellation of his GST registration by order dated 04.03.2025 for non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months. A Show Cause Notice dated 07.10.2024 had suspended his registration with effect from that date. The petitioner attributed the default to a miscommunication with his tax consultant during the relevant period, and stated that he had since updated his returns up to December 2024 as permitted on the portal, and wished to continue his business. Since the statutory period for filing a revocation application had lapsed by the time he became aware of the cancellation, he approached the Gauhati High Court.

Issues Involved:

  1. Whether a GST registration cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) for non-filing of returns can be restored where the limitation for seeking revocation has expired.
  2. Whether the reasoning in the Court's earlier coordinate-bench decisions on identical facts applies with equal force.

Petitioner's Arguments:

  • The default was not intentional but arose from a miscommunication with the tax consultant, and returns for the relevant months had since been filed.
  • The petitioner was ready to comply with the requirements of the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 to seek restoration.

Respondent's Arguments:

  • Counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that, in view of the Court's orders in similar matters, he had no objection to similar relief being granted to the petitioner.

Court Order / Findings:

  • The Court extensively relied upon its earlier judgments in Dhirghat Hardware Stores & Anr. v. Union of India and Masuk Ahmed Barbhuiya v. Union of India, both of which construed Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and its proviso to sub-rule (4) as permitting the proper officer to drop cancellation proceedings on furnishing of pending returns and payment of tax, interest and late fee.
  • Noting that cancellation of registration entails serious civil consequences, the Court held that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by the earlier precedents and directed him to approach the concerned authority within 60 days seeking restoration.
  • On such an application being made in compliance with the Rule 22(4) proviso, the authority was directed to restore the registration as expeditiously as possible.

Important Clarification:

  • Where an assessee demonstrates bona fide compliance by filing all pending returns and paying dues after a registration cancellation, courts consistently extend a further opportunity for restoration under Rule 22(4), notwithstanding that the statutory revocation window has technically lapsed.
  • The limitation period under Section 73(10) for assessment of the relevant periods runs afresh from the date of the Court's order (barring FY 2024-25, which follows Section 44).

Sections Involved:

  • Section 29(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 — cancellation for continuous non-filing of returns.
  • Rule 22, CGST Rules, 2017 — cancellation procedure and its proviso enabling restoration on compliance.
  • Section 73(10), CGST Act, 2017 — limitation for passing recovery orders.

Decision – In Favour of: Assessee, subject to compliance with filing of returns and payment of arrears of tax, penalty, interest and late fees.

Case Details: Gauhati High Court; Case No. WP(C)/7342/2025; CNR GAHC010283182025 (2025:GAU-AS:17634); Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kardak Ete; Date of Order: 18.12.2025.

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.