Gauhati High Court: GST Registration May Be Restored Even After Revocation Deadline If Rule 22(4) CGST Conditions Are Met
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Gauhati High Court Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi held that a Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration may be restored even after the expiry of the prescribed revocation period, provided the assessee fulfils the conditions under Rule 22(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Court directed that if the assessee submits an application accompanied by all pending returns and full payment of tax, interest, and late fees, the competent authority shall consider and take necessary steps for restoration of the cancelled GST registration in accordance with law.
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm engaged in hardware trade, operated under the Central and Assam Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017. Its registration was cancelled by the Superintendent of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST), Dhubri-1, Bongaigaon Division, following non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months. A show-cause notice dated January 15, 2023, was issued directing submission of a reply within thirty days, failing which the matter would be decided ex parte. The notice did not specify any date of hearing. Subsequently, an order dated March 22, 2023, cancelled the registration without stating any reasons.
The petitioner contended that the sole proprietor was unfamiliar with the online procedure and therefore failed to respond within time. Upon discovering the cancellation, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on October 9, 2025. It was submitted that all pending returns up to March 2023 had been filed, and corresponding tax dues, interest, and late fees were discharged. However, when the petitioner attempted to apply for revocation of the cancellation, the system displayed a message stating that the 270-day timeline for filing the application had expired.
Relying on Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, and Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, the petitioner sought restoration of registration, expressing willingness to comply with the conditions prescribed in the proviso to Rule 22(4). The respondents, represented by counsel for the CGST, maintained that the cancellation was lawful under Section 29(2)(c) due to continuous default in filing returns. The Court heard both sides on October 17, 2025.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed: “As per Section 29(2)(c) of the Act, an officer, duly empowered, may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he deems fit, where any registered person, has not furnished returns for a continuous period of 6 (six) months. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 has laid down the procedure for cancellation of the registration.”
The Court stated the proviso to Rule 22(4): “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.”
It was recorded: “It is discernible from a reading of the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 2017 that if a person, who has been served with a show cause notice under Section 29(2)(c) of the Act, is ready and willing to furnish all the pending returns and to make full payment of the tax itself along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer, duly empowered, can drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form i.e. Form GST REG-20.”
The Court further observed: “Having regard to the fact that the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the Act … this Court is of the considered view that in the event the petitioners approach the officer, duly empowered, by furnishing all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer duly empowered, may consider to drop the proceedings and pass an appropriate order in the prescribed Form.”
The Court directed that “the petitioners shall approach the concerned authority within a period of two months from today seeking restoration of her GST registration.” It further ordered that “if the petitioners submit such an application and complies with all the requirements as provided in the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the Rules, the concerned authority shall consider the application of the petitioners for restoration of GST registration in accordance with law and shall take necessary steps for restoration of GST registration of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.”
“It is needless to say that the period as stipulated under Section 73(10) of the Central GST Act/State GST Act shall be computed from the date of the instant order, except for the financial year 2024-25, which shall be as per Section 44 of the Central GST Act/State GST Act.” Finally, it recorded that “the petitioners herein would also be liable to make payment of arrears i.e. tax, penalty, interest and late fees.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri R.S. Mishra, Advocate, assisted by Mr. A.K. Gupta and Mr. R.S. Mishra
For the Respondents: Shri K. Jain, Advocate, on behalf of Shri S.C. Keyal, Senior Standing Counsel, CGST
Case Title: Dhirghat Hardware Stores and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Neutral Citation: GAHC010230992025
Case Number: WP(C)/5944/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi
