Expired revocation timelines do not bar restoration of GST registration, subject to filing returns and clearing statutory dues.

The petitioner, a trader in second-hand used cars and a registered taxpayer under the CGST Act, 2017 and the AGST Act, 2017, held GST Registration No. 18AGLPH6680G2Z1.

Due to non-filing of returns under Section 39 of the CGST Act, a show-cause notice dated 15 January 2023 was issued proposing cancellation of his registration, with the registration also suspended from that date.

The petitioner asserted that he was facing severe financial difficulties and that the notice uploaded on the GST Portal did not come to his attention, resulting in his failure to submit a reply or attend the hearing within the prescribed time.

His registration was subsequently cancelled by order dated 11 July 2023. His application for revocation was rejected on the ground that the prescribed period of 270 days from the date of cancellation had expired.

He consequently approached the Gauhati High Court seeking relief against the cancellation and the rejection of revocation.

Whether the petitioner’s cancellation of GST registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 should be set aside in circumstances where the petitioner failed to file returns and did not respond to the show-cause notice within time.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to seek restoration of his GST registration notwithstanding the expiry of the prescribed period for filing an application for revocation.

What conditions should govern restoration of the petitioner’s registration, including filing of pending returns and payment of tax, interest, penalty and late fees.

The Court applied Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning cancellation of GST registration, and Section 39, which requires registered taxpayers to furnish periodic returns.

It also considered the statutory framework governing revocation of cancellation and the prescribed limitation period, reflected in the GST Portal’s rejection of the petitioner’s application after 270 days.

The Court relied on its earlier decision in Motaleb Bhuyan v. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1429, and held that similar directions could be issued in the present case.

The Court further directed that the periods under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) of the CGST/AGST Acts would be computed from the date of judgment, while the financial year 2025–26 would remain governed by Section 44.

The Court accepted that the petitioner had failed to furnish returns and had not responded to the cancellation notice within the stipulated period, but treated the matter as falling within the category of cases warranting remedial directions similar to those issued in Motaleb Bhuyan.

Rather than allowing the cancellation to stand solely because the revocation application was time-barred, the Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to set aside the cancellation, subject to strict compliance by the petitioner.

The relief was conditional upon filing all returns from the period of default within 30 days and discharging the applicable tax, interest, penalty and late-fee liabilities.

The Court also protected the statutory assessment periods by prescribing the relevant computation date for Sections 73(10) and 74(10).

The petitioner was directed to file all pending returns from the date of default up to the date of the order within 30 days, and to pay the arrears of tax, penalty, interest and late fees.

The limitation periods under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) were directed to be computed from the date of judgment, except for financial year 2025–26, which would be governed by Section 44.