Facts of the Case: Dhiraj Kumar, proprietor of M/s Riddhi Diamonds and holder of GSTIN 29AHSPD2418E1ZE, had his GST registration cancelled by an order dated 29.08.2023 passed in Form GST REG-19 by the Assistant Commissioner, LGSTO-030, Bengaluru. The ground for cancellation was that the petitioner had failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months, a default that falls squarely within the statutory ground for cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. Rather than pursuing the departmental route of filing a revocation application, the petitioner approached the Karnataka High Court directly under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the cancellation order at Annexure-C and to have his registration restored.

Issues Involved:

  1. Whether a GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns for six months should be set aside where the petitioner undertakes to cure the default.
  2. What conditions ought to accompany restoration of such registration.

Petitioner's Arguments:

  • The petitioner submitted that he was willing to rectify the lapse by filing returns for the defaulted period and paying tax together with applicable interest and penalty.

Respondent's Arguments:

  • The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Court could pass appropriate orders taking note of the petitioner's stated willingness to comply.

Court Order / Findings:

  • Taking note of the petitioner's undertaking to make good the lapse, the Court set aside the order of cancellation of GST registration.
  • The petitioner was directed to regularise the default by filing returns for the relevant period, along with payment of arrears of tax and penalty for that period.
  • Respondents were directed to restore the GST registration within four weeks, subject to the petitioner filing the returns and paying tax together with interest and penalty. The Court did not require the petitioner to independently pursue the standard departmental revocation-of-cancellation process; instead, it treated the writ petition itself as the vehicle for granting conditional restoration, once satisfied that the petitioner's undertaking to cure the default was unconditional and unopposed by the Revenue.

Important Clarification:

  • Where a registered person facing cancellation for continuous non-filing of returns expresses unconditional willingness before the Court to cure the default by filing returns and clearing dues with interest and penalty, courts routinely set aside the cancellation and direct time-bound restoration, rather than compelling the assessee to exhaust the departmental revocation mechanism afresh.
  • Such relief is typically time-bound and conditional — restoration must follow, not precede, actual compliance (filing of returns and payment of tax, interest and penalty) — so that the interests of revenue are protected even as the assessee is given a fair opportunity to continue its business.

Sections Involved:

  • Section 29, CGST Act, 2017 — cancellation of registration for continuous default in filing returns.
  • Form GST REG-19 — order of cancellation of registration.

Decision – In Favour of: Assessee, subject to filing of returns and payment of arrears of tax, interest and penalty within the time granted.

Case Details: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Writ Petition No. 8890 of 2026 (T-RES); Neutral Citation 2026:KHC:17690; Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav; Date of Order: 1st April, 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.