Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Sri Prabhat Das, sole proprietor of M/s Priyanshi Enterprises and a registered CGST/AGST assessee, was served a show cause notice on 13.11.2023 for non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months. Having failed to reply within the stipulated time due to alleged miscommunication with his tax consultant, his registration was cancelled by order dated 19.04.2024 without any reasons being assigned. By the time the petitioner discovered the cancellation, both the reply period and the 270-day window under the portal for filing a revocation application had lapsed, even though he had by then updated all pending returns up to June 2024 and discharged dues with interest and late fee. His statutory appeal against the cancellation was also dismissed. He approached the Gauhati High Court seeking restoration of registration.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a taxpayer who has cured the default (filed pending returns and paid dues) after the 270-day revocation window has lapsed can still seek restoration of a cancelled GST registration.
  2. From which date the limitation period under Section 73(10) of the CGST/AGST Act should be computed where registration is restored belatedly.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The cancellation order was passed without assigning any reason, causing serious civil consequences.
  • The petitioner was unaware of online procedures and could not respond to the SCN in time due to miscommunication with his tax consultant.
  • The petitioner has since filed all pending returns and paid tax, interest and late fee, and is ready to comply with the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The appeal filed by the petitioner against the cancellation order has already been dismissed and that dismissal has not been separately challenged.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that under the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, if a person served with an SCN under Section 29(2)(c) furnishes all pending returns and pays tax dues with interest and late fee, the proper officer may drop the cancellation proceedings.
  • Considering 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 take steps for restoration expeditiously.
  • The Court clarified that the period under Section 73(10) of the Central/State GST Act shall be computed from the date of the instant order, except for FY 2024-25 which would follow Section 44.

Important Clarification

  • Even after the 270-day statutory window for filing a revocation application has expired, a writ court can direct the department to entertain a restoration request where the assessee subsequently complies with the proviso to Rule 22(4) by filing pending returns and clearing dues.
  • Where such relief is granted well after the original limitation period, courts may specifically clarify that the Section 73(10) limitation clock is reset to run from the date of the restoration-enabling order, rather than the original cancellation date.

Sections Involved

  • Section 29(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 – cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months.
  • Rule 22, CGST Rules, 2017 – procedure for cancellation of registration, including the proviso to sub-rule (4) permitting dropping of proceedings on full compliance.
  • Section 73(10), CGST Act, 2017 – limitation period for passing an order determining tax not paid.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of in favour of the Assessee, subject to compliance; the petitioner was given a fresh opportunity to seek restoration of registration on payment of all arrears.

Case Details

Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh); WP(C)/4590/2025; Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi; Order dated 12.08.2025.

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.