Facts of the Case

The petitioners, a proprietorship firm and its sole proprietor, registered under the CGST/AGST Act, 2017, were served a show-cause notice dated 22.01.2020 for non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months, and the registration was cancelled by order dated 03.06.2020 for failure to reply or appear. The petitioners contended the proprietor was not conversant with the online procedure and discovered the notice only after the time for reply had lapsed. All pending returns up to June 2020 were subsequently filed with full payment of dues, interest and late fee, but the application seeking revocation of cancellation was dismissed.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a taxpayer who has, after cancellation, filed all pending returns and paid tax dues, interest and late fee, but whose revocation application has been dismissed, is entitled to relief permitting fresh consideration of restoration.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioners were ready and willing to comply with all formalities required under the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Represented by the Standing Counsel, CGST; no specific ground of opposition to restoration on full compliance is recorded.

Court Order / Findings

  • Under Section 29(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017, registration may be cancelled for continuous non-filing of returns for six months, and Rule 22 lays down the cancellation procedure, its proviso to sub-rule (4) permitting the proper officer to drop proceedings on furnishing of pending returns and full payment of tax dues, interest and late fee.
  • Given the serious civil consequences of cancellation and the petitioners' willingness to comply with the proviso to Rule 22(4), the Court held the concerned officer may consider dropping the proceedings and restoring the registration even though the revocation application had already been dismissed.
  • The writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioners to approach the concerned authority within two months seeking restoration, with the officer to take necessary steps as expeditiously as possible on compliance.
  • As in comparable cases, limitation under Section 73(10) was clarified to run afresh from the date of this order (save for FY 2024-25, governed by Section 44), and the petitioners were made liable for all arrears of tax, penalty, interest and late fee.

Important Clarification

  • Dismissal of a revocation application does not foreclose relief altogether; where the taxpayer subsequently files all pending returns and is willing to pay dues in full, courts will direct the authority to consider restoration afresh under the proviso to Rule 22(4), given the serious civil consequences that flow from cancellation of registration.

Sections Involved

  • Section 29(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 -- cancellation of registration for continuous non-filing of returns for six months.
  • Rule 22, CGST Rules, 2017 -- procedure for cancellation of registration, including the proviso to sub-rule (4).
  • Section 73(10), CGST Act, 2017 -- limitation for issuance of orders under Section 73.

Decision – In Favour of

Assessee. The petitioners were given a fresh opportunity to seek restoration of registration by complying with Rule 22(4), notwithstanding the earlier dismissal of their revocation application.

Case Details

Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh); Case No. WP(C)/5401/2025; Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi; Judgment dated 17.09.2025.

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.