Tayum Roma Vs The Union of India and 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040004982025

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/145/2025

¶5

Tayum Roma Son of Tayum Nabro, resident of 009, Sandupota, Village Potha, PO Balijan, Kokila, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh and carrying on a proprietorship business in the trade of M/s L and L Enterprises

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The Union of India and 2 Ors represented by the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), North Block, New Delhi. 2:The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Itanagar Age: 0 Occupation : Sector A Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar Zone-II Range Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Eddie Payeng, Shantanu Kumar Sarma

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, M K Boro,DSGI

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶11

Page No.# 2/4

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 02.04.2025

¶14

Heard Mr. S.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Tony Meto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI appearing for respondent no.1 and Mr. M.K. Boro, learned standing counsel for CGST and Central Excise, representing respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶15

In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he is registered under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for his firm under the name and style of M/s. L&L Enterprises. The petitioner admits that since July, 2020, the petitioner could not file the GST returns. Therefore, the respondent no.3 after issuance of a show-cause notice, cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner’s firm vide an order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Superintendent, Itanagar Zone-II.

¶16

The petitioner claims that in December, 2024, the petitioner has filed all his pending GST returns till February, 2021 and it is claimed that the petitioner is also paid all the late fine and penalty as applicable as on February, 2021. The petitioner could not apply for revocation of the cancellation order as the prescribed period of limitation and condonable period has already expired. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise and Customs under Section 107(1) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. However, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the Order-In-Appeal No. 65/GHY(A)/JC/GSTP/ITA/2025 dated 17.01.2025, amongst others, on the ground that there is no provision in the CGST Act, 2017 to condone any delay beyond the prescribed stipulated time under the CGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.02.2021 passed

¶17

Page No.# 3/4

¶18

by the Superintendent, CGST, Itanagar Zone-II.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by this Court in WP(C) 70(AP)/2025 in the matter of Ms. Yassung Yangfo v. Union of India & 2 Ors., by which this Court had passed conditional order for directing the respondent authorities to revoke the cancellation of the GST registration, subject to complete payment of all the dues.

¶20

On a query of this Court, the learned standing counsel for the GST has not disputed the projection that the present case is similar to the one which has been disposed of by order dated 24.02.2025 passed by this Court in WP(C) 70(AP)/2025.

¶21

Having seen that a similar order has already been passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Cout including order dated 03.01.2025 passed in WP(C) 7057(AP)/2024 in the matter of Krishanu Borthakur v. Union of India.

¶22

Accordingly, in light of the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by this Court in WP(C) 70(AP)/2025 and order dated 03.01.2025 passed in WP(C) 7057(AP)/2024, and subject to conditions hereinafter provided, the order bearing reference No.ZA120221006062O dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Superintendent, CGST, Itanagar Zone-II Range is hereby set aside. The Court is inclined to pass the following conditional orders:

¶23

i. The Superintendent, CGST, Itanagar Zone-II (respondent no.3), will intimate the petitioner his total statutory outstanding dues, if any, in the name of the petitioner having trade name of M/s. L&L Enterprises till the date of cancellation of the GST registration and any penalty and fine as may be found due as on the date of restoration of

¶24

Page No.# 4/4

¶25

the GST registration so as to enable the petitioner to make payment of the entire statutory dues under CGST Act by the petitioner.

¶26

ii. The petitioner shall make the payment of the due within 21(twenty one) days from the date of receipt of intimation.

¶27

iii. Upon a proof of payment within time allowed being submitted, the respondent no.3 will pass an appropriate order to revoke the order dated 08.02.2021 bearing reference No. ZA120221006062O and thereby restore the GST registration of the petitioner.

¶28

Accordingly, with the aforesaid conditional order, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶29

The parties are left to bear their own cost.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Tayum Roma v. The Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tayum Roma v. The Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s K T Enterprises Vs The State of Ap and 7 Ors.

M/s Vijay Agarwal and Sons Vs The State of Ap and 10 Ors.

Charu Tahar and 29 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 5 Ors.

Ramniwas Roj Vs The Union of India and 2 Ors.

Mitum Gamlin Vs the State of Ap and 4 Ors.

M/s Cherom Trading Company Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.