Ramniwas Roj Vs The Union of India and 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040004992025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/146/2025

¶5

Ramniwas Roj

¶6

Son of Bhanwar Roj, resident of Taggu Apartment, Near Solung Ground, Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh 791102 and carrying on a proprietorship business in the trade name of M/s Shri Ram Construction Company.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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.

¶9

2:The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Itanagar Age: 0 Occupation : Sector A Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh.

¶10

3:The Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax Age: 0 Occupation : Pasighat Range Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : Eddie Payeng, Shantanu Kumar Sarma

¶12

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

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 02.04.2025

¶17

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.

¶18

2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that his business/trade under the trade name of M/s. Shri Ram Construction Company was severely affected due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and therefore, he went back to his native village in the State of Rajasthan and could not file his GST return after December, 2021. Subsequently, after issuance of a show cause notice, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled vide order under Reference No. ZA120523006082C dated 27.05.2023 passed by the Superintendent, GST, Pasighat.

¶19

3. The petitioner claims that when he returned back to resume his business in the month of May, 2024, he found that his GST registration was cancelled. The petitioner claims that he has filed all his pending GST returns till May, 2023 and also paid the late fine and penalties. However, as the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 30 of the CGST Act including the extendable period had expired, the petitioner could not apply for revocation of the cancellation of his registration.

¶20

4. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise and Customs. However, the said appeal was dismissed by Order-In-Appeal No. 57/GHY(A)/JC/GSTP/ITA/2025 dated

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

16.01.2025.

¶23

5. 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.

¶24

6. 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.

¶25

7. Thus, it is 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.

¶26

8. 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. ZA120523006082C dated 27.05.2023 passed by the Superintendent, GST, Pasighat is hereby set aside. The Court is inclined to pass the following conditional orders:

¶27

i. The Superintendent, GST, Pasighat (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. Shri Ram Construction Company till the date of cancellation of the GST

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

registration and any penalty and fine as may be found due as on the date of restoration of the GST registration so as to enable the petitioner to make payment of the entire statutory dues under CGST Act by the petitioner.

¶30

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

¶31

iii. Upon a proof of payment made within time allowed being submitted, the respondent no.3 will pass an appropriate order to revoke the order dated 27.05.2023 bearing reference No. ZA120523006082C and thereby restore the GST registration of the petitioner.

¶32

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

¶33

10. The parties are left to bear their own cost.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Ramniwas Roj v. The Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramniwas Roj 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.

Tayum Roma 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.