The Gauhati High Court granted relief to a GST-registered works contractor whose registration had been cancelled for non-filing of returns, holding that restoration could be considered if the taxpayer complies with the requirements prescribed under Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Justice Kardak Ete directed the authorities to consider restoration of registration upon fulfilment of the statutory conditions.

The petitioner, Bhushan Chandra Deka, proprietor of M/s Rainbow Enterprise, was engaged in the business of execution of works contract services. His GST registration was suspended on 14.05.2024 and subsequently cancelled on 05.08.2024 after he failed to respond to a show-cause notice issued for non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months. The appellate authority also rejected his appeal against the cancellation order.

Before the High Court, the petitioner submitted that he could not file the GST returns due to serious burn injuries suffered in an LPG cylinder blast at his residence. It was further contended that he had subsequently updated his GST returns up to the April–June 2024 period and was willing to comply with all statutory requirements, including payment of tax dues, interest and late fees.

The petitioner relied upon the Gauhati High Court’s earlier decision in Dhirghat Hardware Stores v. Union of India, where similar relief had been granted in a case involving cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns.

“If a person is ready and willing to furnish all the pending returns and to make full payment of the tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer can drop the proceedings and pass an order in Form GST REG-20.”

The court observed that the issue was squarely covered by the earlier judgement and noted that cancellation of GST registration entails serious civil consequences. Referring to the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, it reiterated that a taxpayer who furnishes all pending returns and clears the outstanding tax liabilities along with applicable interest and late fees may be considered for restoration of registration.

The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief granted in the earlier precedent and directed him to approach the concerned authority within sixty days seeking restoration of GST registration.

“If the petitioner submits an application and complies with all the requirements as provided in proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the concerned authority shall consider the application and take necessary steps for restoration of GST registration.”

Thus, the court directed the GST authorities to consider the petitioner’s request for restoration in accordance with law upon compliance with the prescribed conditions. The petitioner was also directed to pay all outstanding tax, penalty, interest and late fees. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.