Expired revocation timelines do not bar restoration of GST registration upon filing overdue returns.

In brief

The question

Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration should be set aside where the petitioner alleged that the show-cause notice and cancellation order did not state adequate reasons.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition to the extent of setting aside and quashing the cancellation order dated 17 May 2024.

It also directed

It directed the petitioner to file the outstanding returns within 30 days and to pay arrears of tax, penalty, interest and late fees.

The periods under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) are to be computed from the date of the order, except for financial year 2026–27, for which Section 44 applies.

01Facts

The petitioner, a registered GST assessee engaged in providing motor vehicles on hire, did not file returns required under Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. A show-cause notice dated 5 February 2024 proposed cancellation and stated that the registration was suspended; the registration was cancelled on 17 May 2024.

pp. 3–4

The petitioner contended that the notice did not specify a reason under Section 29 and that the cancellation order gave no reasons. After learning of the cancellation, the petitioner sought revocation and attempted to file returns, but the GST Portal rejected the application because the 270-day period had expired.

pp. 4–5

The petitioner then brought this writ petition.

02Issues

i.Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration should be set aside where the petitioner alleged that the show-cause notice and cancellation order did not state adequate reasons.

p. 4

ii.Whether the petitioner could obtain relief despite the GST Portal refusing the revocation application because the prescribed 270-day period had expired.

p. 5

03Law Applied

Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017 requires filing of returns, and Section 29 provides for cancellation of registration.

pp. 3–4

The Court relied on Motaleb Bhuyan v. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1429, as addressing similar facts and entitling the petitioner to similar relief.

p. 5

The Court’s directions also refer to the limitation periods under Sections 73(10) and 74(10), and the return requirement under Section 44 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the corresponding provisions of the AGST Act, 2017.

pp. 5–6

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 29 Section 39 Section 73 Section 74 Section 44

ASSAM GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 Section 73 Section 74 Section 44

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner did not dispute the failure to file returns, but recorded the petitioner’s objections that the show-cause notice and cancellation order lacked reasons.

pp. 3–4

It also considered that the petitioner’s revocation application could not be processed because the portal treated the 270-day period as expired.

p. 5

Finding the facts similar to those in Motaleb Bhuyan, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to similar relief, without setting out further analysis of that precedent.

p. 5

05Holding

The Court allowed the petition to the extent of setting aside and quashing the cancellation order dated 17 May 2024.

p. 5

It directed the petitioner to file the outstanding returns within 30 days and to pay arrears of tax, penalty, interest and late fees.

pp. 5–6

The periods under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) are to be computed from the date of the order, except for financial year 2026–27, for which Section 44 applies.

p. 6

LawLens.Gauhati High Court

Original Court PDF