1. Case Title

Debasish Boruah vs. The Union of India & Others
WP(C)/3149/2025
Gauhati High Court
Order dated: 06.06.2025
Hon’ble Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

2. Summary of Facts

The petitioner, a GST-registered taxpayer under the CGST/AGST Act (Registration No. 18AXDPB6784C2ZJ), failed to file GST returns for over six months. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 13.11.2023 was issued under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, warning of ex parte proceedings. However, no personal hearing was scheduled. On 24.04.2024, the GST registration was cancelled by the Superintendent, Jorhat-1. The petitioner was unable to file a revocation application within the prescribed period and approached the High Court seeking redress.

3. Key Issues

• Whether cancellation of GST registration without granting an opportunity for a personal hearing violated principles of natural justice.
• Whether the petitioner should be permitted restoration of registration under the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, upon compliance.

4. Decision/Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the GST authority within two months and comply with the requirements under Rule 22(4) proviso. The Court directed the concerned officer to consider the revocation/restoration application and pass orders accordingly.

5. Reasoning behind the Decision

The Court emphasized that cancellation of GST registration has serious civil consequences. Citing Rule 22(4)'s proviso, it held that if the petitioner furnishes all pending returns and pays taxes, interest, and late fees, the proper officer is empowered to drop proceedings and restore registration. Reference was also made to a similar precedent—Sanjoy Nath vs. Union of India (WP(C)/6366/2023)—affirming such relief.

6. Impact/Implications of the Decision

• Reaffirms the curative intent of Rule 22(4) proviso for compliant taxpayers.
• Strengthens procedural fairness by acknowledging due process deficiencies (e.g., absence of a hearing).
• Offers taxpayers an opportunity to regularize compliance and resume business operations.
• Resets the limitation period under Section 73(10) for tax recovery post-judgment, securing the interests of revenue authorities.

7.Relevant provisions of Law discussed in this Case

- Rule-22(4) proviso is as under.

[Provided that where the person instead of replying to the notice served under sub-rule (1) for contravention of the provisions contained in clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 29, furnishes all the pending returns and makes full payment of the tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORM GST-REG 20] (Inserted vide Notification No.39/2018 - CT dated 04.09.2018))

-Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act

Section 29(2)(c) any registered person, other than a person specified in section 29(2) clause (b), has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months

29(2)(b) a person paying tax under section 10( it is a composition taxpayer) has not furnished ³[the return for a financial year beyond three months from the due date of furnishing the said return]​;