GST registration cancellation set aside, with 30 days allowed to file pending returns and pay dues.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief from the cancellation of registration, given the failure to file returns and the expiry of the portal’s 270-day revocation period.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition to the extent of setting aside and quashing the cancellation order dated 13 May 2024.

It also directed

It directed the petitioner to file the outstanding returns within 30 days, made the petitioner liable for arrears of tax, penalty, interest, and late fees, and ordered that the periods under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) be computed from the date of the order, subject to the stated exception for financial year 2026–27.

01Facts

The petitioner, a registered manpower recruitment agency, failed to file returns required under Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–7

A show-cause notice dated 5 February 2024 proposed cancellation of his registration and stated that it would be suspended from that date; the registration was subsequently cancelled.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–7

The petitioner later sought revocation by filing returns, but the GST Portal rejected the application because the 270-day period had expired. He challenged the cancellation and the resulting inability to seek revocation.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief from the cancellation of registration, given the failure to file returns and the expiry of the portal’s 270-day revocation period.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 2, 7–9

ii.2. Whether the petitioner could be granted relief similar to that granted in Motaleb Bhuyan v. State of Assam, in light of the asserted similarity of the facts.

p. 5 · ¶ 8–9

03Law Applied

Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides for cancellation of registration, while Section 39 requires the filing of returns; the petitioner did not dispute his failure to file those returns.

p. 4 · ¶ 4

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

p. 5 · ¶ 8–9

The Court also directed that the periods under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) of the CGST and AGST Acts be computed from the date of its order, with the financial year 2026–27 governed by Section 44.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 10(iii)

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

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

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

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner’s failure to file returns was undisputed and that the Portal had refused revocation because the prescribed 270-day period had elapsed.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 4, 7

It did not separately determine the petitioner’s objections that the show-cause notice and cancellation order lacked adequate reasons; instead, it treated the matter as governed by the similar issue addressed in Motaleb Bhuyan and concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 5, 8–9