Janardan Tamuli @ Janardan Tamuly Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court)
Summary: Gauhati High Court set aside the cancellation of GST registration of a transport service provider whose registration had been cancelled on 28.07.2025 for failure to furnish GST returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner explained that the returns could not be filed regularly because of miscommunication with his tax consultant. By the time he became aware of the cancellation and attempted to apply for revocation, the prescribed limitation period had expired. The petitioner had, however, filed returns for April-June and July-September of FY 2025-26. The High Court found that the controversy was covered by its earlier decision in Motaleb Bhuyan v. State of Assam & Ors., (2025) SCC OnLine Gau 1429, and held that the petitioner was entitled to similar relief. Accordingly, the cancellation order was quashed and the petitioner was directed to file all outstanding returns within 30 days from the date of the High Court’s order. The Court further directed that the period stipulated under Sections 73(10)/74(10) of the CGST/AGST Acts would be computed from the date of the instant order, except for FY 2025-26, which would remain governed by Section 44. The petitioner was also made liable to discharge all arrears comprising tax, penalty, interest and late fees.
Cases Discussed
- Motaleb Bhuyan v. State of Assam & Ors., (2025) SCC OnLine Gau 1429 (Gauhati High Court) — Relied upon. The Court found the facts of the present case similar to those considered in Motaleb Bhuyan and, following that decision, granted similar relief by setting aside the GST registration cancellation subject to filing pending returns and payment of statutory arrears.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT
1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Jain, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
2. The petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Superintendent, Duliajan Range whereby the petitioner’s registration was cancelled. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are narrated hereinbelow.
3. The petitioner claims that he is engaged in the business of providing transport service under the name and style of Janardan Tamuly. For the purpose of carrying on the business, the petitioner was registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and was issued a registration number bearing 18AHEPT3088L1ZO.
4. The case of the petitioner herein is that because of non- filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months, the Jurisdictional Officer issued a show cause notice for cancellation of the registration in Form GST REG-17/31 dated 12.02.2025 to the petitioner. It was further mentioned in the said show-cause notice that the registration of the petitioner stood suspended w.e.f. 12.02.2025. On 28.07.2025, the respondent No. 3 cancelled the registration on the ground of failure to furnish returns for the prescribed period. The cancellation of the registration was given effect from 28.07.2025.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that due to some miscommunication between the petitioner and his tax consultant, the returns were not filed regularly. It is the further case of the petitioner that on coming to know about the order dated 28.07.2025, the petitioner tried to file the necessary application seeking revocation of the GST cancellation, however, the same could not be filed as the time limit prescribed for filing the revocation application had elapsed. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted the returns for the months of April-June and July-September for the financial year 2025-26. The filing of the returns in Form GSTR-3B has been enclosed as Annexure-D (Colly.) to the writ petition.
7. This Court finds it pertinent to take note of that the issue similar to the present one was dealt with by this Court in detail in the judgment rendered in the case of Motaleb Bhuyan v. The State of Assam & Ors., reported in (2025) SCC OnLine Gau 1429.
8. It is the opinion of this Court that as the facts of the instant case are similar to those of the petitioners in the judgment rendered in the case of Motaleb Bhuyan (supra), the petitioner herein is entitled to similar reliefs.
9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:
(i) The order of cancellation of registration dated 28.07.2025 is set aside and quashed.
(ii) The petitioner herein is directed to file the returns for the period from the date the petitioner had failed to file the returns till date, within 30 days from the date of the instant order.
(iii) The period as stipulated in Section 73(10)/74(10) of the CGST Act of 2017/AGST Act, 2017 shall be computed from the date of the instant order, except for the financial year 2025-26, which shall be as per Section 44 of the CGST Act of 2017/AGST Act, 2017.
(iv) The petitioner herein shall also be liable to make payment of the arrears i.e. tax, penalty, interest and late fees.
