Facts of the Case

D.D. Construction, a partnership firm registered under GSTIN 18AALFD2009F1ZQ, was issued a show cause notice dated 14.11.2023 for non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months, with the personal hearing notified only on 12.12.2023. The Superintendent, Naharkatia, cancelled the firm's registration by order dated 20.02.2024. The firm's subsequent attempt to file for revocation failed as the prescribed time limit had already elapsed. It approached the Gauhati High Court, expressing willingness to comply with all formalities under the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a taxpayer whose GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns, and whose revocation window has since lapsed, can still be granted an opportunity to have the proceedings dropped by furnishing all pending returns and dues.
  2. How the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 interacts with the statutory 270-day online revocation deadline once it has expired.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner submitted that due to reasons beyond its control it could not submit returns under Section 39(1) of the CGST Act for about six months, but was ready and willing to comply with all formalities under the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and relied on a similarly-placed case, Ansari Construction vs Union of India (WP(C) No. 2793/2025).

Respondent's Arguments

  • Standing Counsel, CGST, appeared for the respondents; the order does not record a substantive objection to extending relief on the same terms as Ansari Construction.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court extracted Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, holding that the proviso to sub-rule (4) empowers the proper officer to drop cancellation proceedings and restore registration in Form GST REG-20 where the person furnishes all pending returns and pays tax dues with interest and late fee in full.
  • Given the serious civil consequences of cancellation, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority within two months seeking restoration, and directed the authority to consider the application in accordance with law and restore the registration expeditiously on compliance.
  • It clarified the limitation period under Section 73(10) would be computed from the date of the order (except FY 2024-25, governed by Section 44), and that the petitioner remains liable for all arrears.

Important Clarification

  • Even after the online 270-day window to seek revocation has lapsed, the writ court will direct the GST authority to consider restoration under the proviso to Rule 22(4) where the taxpayer is willing to file all pending returns and clear dues in full — this is now a well-established relief across multiple High Courts for registration cancelled solely for non-filing of returns.

Sections Involved

  • Section 29(2)(c), Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – cancellation for continuous non-filing of returns.
  • Rule 22, CGST Rules, 2017 – cancellation procedure, including the proviso to sub-rule (4).
  • Section 39(1), Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – obligation to file periodic returns.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions; in favour of the Assessee, with restoration available on full compliance within two months.

Case Details

  • Court: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
  • Case No.: WP(C)/4384/2025
  • Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi
  • Date of Order: 06.08.2025

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.