Bhaskar Baishya Vs Union of India and 5 Ors. (Gauhati High Court)
Summary: The Gauhati High Court, in Bhaskar Baishya Vs Union of India and 5 Ors., set aside the cancellation of GST registration of a works contract service provider whose registration had been cancelled for failure to file GST returns continuously for six months. The petitioner, registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with GSTIN 18ATTPB2839A1ZS, challenged the cancellation order dated 9 December 2024 issued by the Superintendent, Nalbari Range. The jurisdictional officer had earlier issued a show-cause notice in Form GST REG-17/31 dated 6 November 2024 and suspended the registration from that date. The petitioner explained that acute financial hardship during 2023–25 had affected his business activities and prevented timely GST compliance. He subsequently applied for revocation of cancellation on 20 March 2025, and the delay in filing the application was condoned on 21 March 2025. However, a further show-cause notice dated 22 April 2025 proposed rejection of the revocation application, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Before the Court, the petitioner submitted that he had filed returns in Form GSTR-3B for the relevant quarterly periods during financial years 2023–24 and 2024–25, and supporting documents were annexed to the writ petition. Justice Devashis Baruaah examined the circumstances and referred to the earlier decision in Motaleb Bhuyan v. The State of Assam & Ors., (2025) SCC OnLine Gau 1429, in which the Gauhati High Court had considered a similar controversy involving GST registration cancellation. Finding the facts materially similar, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to corresponding relief. The decision therefore extended the approach adopted in the earlier judgment to a taxpayer whose GST registration had been cancelled because of prolonged return-filing defaults, subject to compliance with the directions imposed by the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the GST registration cancellation order dated 9 December 2024 and directed the petitioner to file all outstanding returns for the period of default within 30 days from the date of its order. The Court further directed that the limitation periods prescribed under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Assam GST Act, 2017 would be computed from the date of the High Court’s order, except for financial year 2025–26, which would be governed by Section 44 of the respective GST enactments. The petitioner was also required to pay all outstanding statutory liabilities, including tax, penalty, interest and late fees. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, providing relief from registration cancellation while preserving the taxpayer’s obligation to complete pending compliance and discharge outstanding GST dues.
Cases Discussed
- Motaleb Bhuyan v. The State of Assam & Ors., (2025) SCC OnLine Gau 1429 (Gauhati High Court) — The Court followed the earlier judgment involving similar circumstances of GST registration cancellation and held that the petitioner was entitled to corresponding relief.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT
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 4 and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
2. The petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the Superintendent, Nalbari 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 execution of Works Contract Services under the name and style of “Bhaskar Baishya”. 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 18ATTPB2839A1ZS.
4. The case of the petitioner herein is that due to 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 06.11.2024 to the petitioner. It was further mentioned in the said show cause notice that the registration of the petitioner stood suspended w.e.f 06.11.2024. On 09.12.2024, the respondent No. 4 cancelled the registration on the ground of failure to furnish returns for the prescribed period. The cancellation of the registration was given effect from 09.12.2024.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that during the year 2023–25, the petitioner was facing acute financial hardship and for that reason could not concentrate on his business activities and also failed to make GST compliances. For that reason, the petitioner could not visit the GST portal. Thereafter, on 20.03.2025, the petitioner filed the necessary application seeking revocation with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the said revocation application and accordingly, the same was condoned vide order dated 21.03.2025. However, the respondent No. 3 issued a show-cause notice dated 22.04.2025 for rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation of registration. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has 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 January–March, April–June, July–September and October–December for the financial years 2023–24 and 2024–25 respectively. The filing of the returns in Form GSTR-3B has been enclosed as Annexure-F (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 09.12.2024 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.
