Tai Saktar Vs The Union of India and 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040005612025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/165/2025

¶5

Tai Saktar

¶6

Son of Shri Tai Charu, resident of G Extension, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh and carrying on a proprietorship business in the trade name of M/s T S Enterprises

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : Habung Aape, Jambey Tsering,Lod Asha,Dakjum Riba,Tasso Dodung Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, M K Boro,DSGI

¶10

Page No.# 2/4

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 10.04.2025

¶14

Heard Mr. H. Ape, 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 his business/trade under the trade name of M/s. T.S. Enterprises was severely affected due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and therefore, he could not file his GST return since the inception of his business, i.e., from March, 2020 onwards. Subsequently, after issuance of a show cause notice, the GST registration no. 12GVRPS6736P12G of the petitioner was cancelled vide order under Reference No. ZA120322000606C dated 09.03.2022 passed by the Superintendent, GST, Naharlagun Zone-I.

¶16

The petitioner claims that when he returned back to resume his business in the month of December, 2024, he found that his GST registration was cancelled. The petitioner claims that he has filed all his pending GST returns till January, 2022 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.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in view of the

¶18

Page No.# 3/4

¶19

expiry of the statutory period of limitation as well as the condonable period, the petitioner has not preferred any appeal and has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to revoke the order of cancellation. The petitioner has projected that he is ready and willing to pay all the GST dues, fines/penalties, etc., for the pending GST returns, if allowed.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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. ZA120322000606C dated 09.03.2022 passed by the Superintendent, GST, Naharlagun Zone-I is hereby set aside. The Court is inclined to pass the following conditional orders:

¶24

Page No.# 4/4

¶25

i. The Superintendent, GST, Naharlagun Zone-I (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. T.S. 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 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 made within time allowed being submitted, the respondent no.3 will pass an appropriate order to revoke the order dated 09.03.2022 bearing reference No. ZA120322000606C 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

Tai Saktar v. The Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tai Saktar 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 Durga Motors Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Tanom Siram Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Dopum Dodum Dolo Women Welfare Development Society Vs Opak Gao and Anr.

Smti Tayo Devi Vs The Union of India and 2 Ors.

Smti Nana Yalla and 3 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 8 Ors.

Smti Zimmy Perme Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.