Disposed¶33

Krishanu Borthakur v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Jan 2025WP(C)/7057/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court writ petition (WP(C)/7057/2024, decided 03.01.2025) on cancellation and restoration of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six months; appeal under Section 107 CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 108 CGST Rules, 2017 time-barred; cancellation order dated 07.03.2024 (Ref. ZA180324003948F) set aside; registration to be restored upon payment of outstanding statutory dues; follows pattern of W.P(C) Nos. 6930/2023, 1049/2023, 5181/2023, 6366/2023; petitioner a works-contract assessee from Tinsukia; respondents include Principal Commissioner CGST Dibrugarh and Superintendent CGST.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation order dated 07.03.2024 set aside; upon intimation and payment of outstanding statutory dues, the cancellation is to be revoked and the petitioner's GST registration restored. No order as to costs.

Krishanu Borthakur Vs Union of India and 2 Ors. — GST and Indirect Tax | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's GST registration, cancelled on 07.03.2024 for failure to file GST returns for a continuous period of six months, should be revoked and the registration restored. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Because statutory dues payable under the GST regime contribute to Union revenue, and exclusion of the petitioner from the GST regime would result in such dues not being deposited, it is necessary for the departmental authorities to reconsider the petitioner's prayer for revocation of the cancellation of his GST registration.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Since similar orders have been passed by this Court as well as other Co-ordinate Benches in like matters, it will serve no purpose to keep the present writ petition pending; the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the orders passed in W.P(C) No. 6930/2023, W.P(C) No. 1049/2023, WP(C) No.5181/2023 and WP(C) No.6366/2023.

¶31

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 07.03.2024 is interfered with and set aside; Respondent No. 3 is directed to intimate the petitioner the total outstanding statutory dues standing in his name till the date of cancellation of his GST registration, and upon deposit of such dues the respondent authority shall pass appropriate orders revoking the cancellation and restoring the GST registration.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Soumitra Saikia, J.), WP(C)/7057/2024, Krishanu Borthakur v. Union of India & 2 Ors., decided 03.01.2025: Petitioner, a works-contract assessee registered under the GST Act, 2017, failed to file returns for six months; after a show cause notice dated 19.02.2024, his GST registration was cancelled by order dated 07.03.2024 (Ref. No. ZA180324003948F). As the time limit for appeal under Section 107 CGST Act, 2017 r/w Rule 108 CGST Rules, 2017 had elapsed and the appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond one month after three months, he filed this writ petition. Noting that Co-ordinate Benches had ordered restoration of GST registration upon payment of dues, and that continued exclusion from the GST regime would defeat revenue collection, the Court disposed of the petition in terms of W.P(C) Nos. 6930/2023, 1049/2023, 5181/2023 and 6366/2023: the cancellation order was set aside; Respondent No. 3 to intimate outstanding dues, and upon their deposit the registration is to be restored. No costs.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010277122024

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/7057/2024

¶6

KRISHANU BORTHAKUR

¶7

S/O SRI BIJAY CHANDRA BORTHAKUR, R/O BORBHATA BENGALI GAON, P.O.-MONKHOOLI, BAHADUR TEA ESTATE ROAD, TINSUKIA, ASSAM786148

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

¶11

2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DIBRUGARH ASSAM-781001

¶12

3:THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX TINSUKIA II RANGE ASSA

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA, MR. R K MAHANTA,MR. R S MISHRA

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, GST

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

03.01.2025

¶20

Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, GST, for the respondents.

¶21

The petitioner is engaged in execution of works contract and is an assessee registered under the provision of GST Act, 2017 and has GST Registration being Registration No. 18AQBPB7776P1Z7.

¶22

Pursuant to being registered under the GST Act, the petitioner has been regularly submitting his GST returns. However, due to several personal problems his GST returns could not be submitted for a continuous period of 6 (six) months. On 19.02.2024, respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice on the petitioner to show cause as to why the GST registration should not be cancelled for not filing the returns for a continuous period of 6 months. The reply was directed to be submitted within 7 days from the date of service of notice.

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 07.03.2024 under reference No. ZA180324003948F, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled. The effective date of cancellation was 07.03.2024. The petitioner decided to approach the appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 R/W Rule 108 of CGST Rules, 2017 for invocation of cancellation of the GST Registration. But subsequently petitioner realised that since the order of cancellation of GST was passed on 07.03.2024 and the time limit for filing the appeal has already been elapsed and the appellate Authority having not been vested with the power and jurisdiction to condone the delay

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

beyond one month after the expiry of 3 month, the petitioner having no other alternative has decided to approach this Court directly instead of preferring the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to various orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches too, whereby this Court had passed orders for restoration of the GST registration.

¶26

Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, GST, however, does not dispute the position that orders have been passed by the Co-ordinate Benches directing the restoration of GST Registration upon complete payment of all dues, if any.

¶27

The learned counsels for the parties have been heard. Pleadings on record have also been perused.

¶28

The petitioner is engaged in execution of works contract. Under the GST regime, the petitioner was required to pay the necessary dues under the CGST or SGST as the case may be or both. These statutory dues are required to be paid by all entities who are registered under the GST regime. Such payments of statutory due(s) contribute towards the revenue collection by the Union. If the petitioner is not included within the GST regime, then any statutory dues that may be required to be deposited by the petitioner will not be deposited and which will not be in the interest of the revenue. Therefore, in order that the petitioner is required to comply with his statutory obligations of payment of taxes under the GST regime, it would be necessary for the departmental authorities to re-consider the prayer of the petitioner for revocation of his cancellation of GST registration.

¶29

It is submitted at the bar that there are several orders passed by this Court as well as by other Co-ordinate Benches in similar matters whereby the matters

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

have been disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to revoke the cancellation of registration upon due payment of all statutory dues payable by the petitioners. In some matters, the assessee had approached the statutory appellate authority for redressal of their grievances which however was rejected by the appellate authority. This Court is therefore of the view that since similar such orders have been passed by this Court as well as other Co-ordinate Benches, it will serve no purpose to keep the present writ petition pending. This present writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of similar orders as had been done by the orders passed in W.P(C) No. 6930/2023, W.P(C) No. 1049/2023, WP(C) No.5181/2023 and WP(C) No.6366/2023.

¶32

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.03.2024 is hereby interfered with and set aside. It is directed that the Respondent No. 3, namely Superintendent of Central Goods & Services Tax, Guwahati will intimate the petitioner the total outstanding statutory dues, if any, standing in the name of the petitioner till the date of cancellation of his GST registration. Upon such intimation, if any such outstanding statutory dues under GST are required to be paid, the same shall be deposited by the petitioner without fail. Upon such payment of statutory dues under the GST by the petitioner, the respondent authority will pass appropriate orders and revoke the cancellation by restoring the GST registration of the petitioner.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ petition stand disposed of. No order as to costs

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Page No.# 5/5

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Krishanu Borthakur v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishanu Borthakur v. 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

Nazrin Khatoon Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Monika Patowary Barman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sunil Rajbangshi and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Minati Dutta Medhi Vs the State of Assam, Represented by the Additional Chiefg Secretary to the Govt. of Assam

Khalekur Zaman Choudhury Vs Rohan Kumar Jha, IAS and Anr.

M/S Print Sales Company and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.