Hazarika Brothers Vs Union of India And 3 Ors (Gauhati High Court)
Summary: The Gauhati High Court set aside the order dated 07.05.2026 rejecting Hazarika Brothers’ application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration, holding that the Proper Officer had failed to provide the effective opportunity of personal hearing mandated by Section 30(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner was a registered assessee holding GST Registration Certificate No.18AADFH8790B1ZA, effective from 01.07.2017. On 04.02.2026, the Proper Officer issued a Show Cause Notice in Form GST REG-31 under Rule 21A of the CGST Rules after noticing that the petitioner had failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months or two quarters as contemplated under Rule 21. The petitioner’s registration was simultaneously suspended with effect from 04.02.2026. As the petitioner neither replied to the notice within the stipulated 30 days nor filed the required returns under Section 39(1), the Proper Officer cancelled the registration on 16.03.2026. The petitioner thereafter applied for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 on 06.04.2026. A further notice dated 20.04.2026 required proof of payment of Government dues, including late fees relating to GSTR-1 and interest, if any, and called for a reply within seven working days. Although that notice stated that failure to appear for personal hearing on the “appointed date and time” could result in an ex parte decision, no actual date or time of hearing was specified. The petitioner did not file a reply but filed returns up to December 2025 on 06.04.2026 and subsequently filed returns up to March 2026 on 09.06.2026. In the meantime, the Proper Officer rejected the revocation application on 07.05.2026 solely on the ground that the petitioner had failed to reply to the notice. The High Court observed that the first proviso to Section 30(2) expressly prohibits rejection of a revocation application unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard. It held that such opportunity must be proper and effective and that merely referring to an “appointed date and time” without actually specifying either did not satisfy the principles of natural justice. The Court further found the rejection order to be cryptic and non-speaking. Accordingly, the order dated 07.05.2026 was quashed. The Proper Officer was directed to resume proceedings from the stage of the show-cause notice, issue a fresh notice of personal hearing through the common portal as well as the petitioner’s email specifying the date and time, and thereafter decide the revocation application under Section 30 on merits and in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.
