GST registration cancellation quashed, subject to filing pending returns and payment of tax, interest, penalty and late fees.

The petitioner, M/s SRD Groups, a partnership firm registered under the CGST Act, 2017 and the AGST Act, 2017, held GST Registration No. 18ABXFS2948F1ZH and was represented by its authorised partner.

The petitioner failed to file statutory returns under Section 39 of the CGST Act, a default which was admitted before the Court.

Consequently, a show-cause notice dated 10 August 2022 was issued proposing cancellation of the GST registration and stating that the registration would remain suspended from that date.

The registration was subsequently cancelled by order dated 6 April 2024, principally on the ground that no reply had been filed to the show-cause notice.

The petitioner also failed to apply for revocation of cancellation within the prescribed period and therefore approached the High Court seeking restoration of its GST registration.

Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration, without an effective opportunity of hearing and without specifying the relevant period of default, was liable to be set aside.

Whether, despite the petitioner’s failure to seek revocation within the prescribed period, the High Court could direct restoration of the registration subject to filing of pending returns and payment of statutory dues.

The Court applied Sections 29 and 30 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the AGST Act, 2017, relating respectively to cancellation and revocation of cancellation of GST registration.

The Court also relied on Section 39, which obligates registered persons to file periodic returns, and Sections 73(10) and 74(10), concerning the statutory periods for determination of tax, interest and penalty.

Relying on Motaleb Bhuyan v. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1429, the Court held that similar equitable directions could be issued to restore registration subject to filing of returns and payment of tax, penalty, interest and late fees.

The Court noted that the petitioner did not dispute its failure to file returns under Section 39, thereby recognising the existence of a statutory default.

However, the Court also took into account that the show-cause notice did not identify the period of default, that the petitioner claimed not to have been afforded a meaningful hearing, and that the cancellation order merely recorded the absence of a reply without assigning substantive reasons.

Although the petitioner had not applied for revocation within the prescribed period under Section 30, the Court treated the matter as covered by the principle adopted in Motaleb Bhuyan.

It therefore exercised its writ jurisdiction to set aside the cancellation while imposing conditions designed to protect the revenue, including filing of all pending returns and payment of the outstanding statutory liabilities.

The petitioner was directed to file all returns from the date of default up to the date of the judgment within 30 days.

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

The petitioner remained liable to pay all arrears of tax, penalty, interest and late fees.

The writ petition was disposed of.