Sanjay Rajendra Jv Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010045402026

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1410/2026

¶6

SANJAY RAJENDRA JV

¶7

A JOINT VENTURE, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, 03/279, LNB ROAD, MANGALDAI,, DISTRICT- DARRANG, ASSAM- 784125, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SANJAY KUMAR AGARWALLA, SON OF LATE SHYAM SUNDAR AGARWALLA, RESIDENT OF WARD NO.3, L.N.B. ROAD, OPP. SBI MANGALDAI BRANCH, P.O., P.S.. AND MANGALDAI, DISTRICT DARRANG, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROOM NO. 66,, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001

¶10

2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS 5TH FLOOR GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI- 781001

¶11

3:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CGST C. EX AND CUSTOMS 3RD FLOOR GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI- 781001

¶12

Page No.# 2/7

¶13

ASSAM

¶14

4:THE JURISDICTION OFFICER/SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX MANGALDAI RANGGE ASSA

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R S MISHRA, MS B SARMA,MS. M DEY

¶16

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

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶18

ORDER

¶19

11.03.2026

¶20

Heard Shri R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. C. Keyal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, C.G.S.T.

¶21

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a joint venture and has been carrying out its business under the name & style, “Sanjay-Rajendra-JV”. The petitioner is an assessee registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017/Assam Goods and Services Tax (AGST) Act, 2017 bearing registration No. 18ABEAS1394R1ZN. Because of non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice bearing reference No.ZA180824010745G dated 13.08.2024 asking the petitioner to furnish reply to the aforesaid notice within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of service of notice and to appear for personal hearing on 10.09.2024 at 11.00. It was also mentioned that if the petitioner fails to furnish a reply within the stipulated date or fails to appear for personal hearing on the appointed date and time, the case will be decided ex parte on the basis of the available records and on merits. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 was passed by the Superintendent, Mangaldai Range Assam, whereby the petitioner’s GST registration has been cancelled without assigning any

¶22

Page No.# 3/7

¶23

reason.

¶24

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that due to miscommunication between the petitioner and the Tax Consultant, the petitioner was neither able to file return nor could visit the GST portal and thereby could not submit any reply to the said show cause notice. It is further contended that when the petitioner came across the said notice, the time for filing reply was already over and order had also been uploaded in the portal. Though the petitioner preferred appeal, the same was dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2026.

¶25

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner has updated all pending returns quarterly i.e. July-September, 2024 as allowed by the GST portal and while updating returns, the petitioner has also discharged all GST dues along with late fees and interest.

¶26

5. Thereafter, the petitioner tried to file the necessary application seeking revocation of GST cancellation, however, the same could not be filed as the time limit prescribed for filing of revocation application was elapsed and a message was displayed in the screen “timeline of 270 days from the date of cancellation order provided to taxpayer to file application for revocation of cancellation is expired.”

¶27

6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶28

7. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with all the formalities required as per proviso to subrule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. On the other hand, Shri Keyal, the learned Senior Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and further has raised

¶29

Page No.# 4/7

¶30

the issue of delay in approaching the Court.

¶31

8. As per Section 29(2)(c) of the Act, an officer, duly empowered, may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he deems fit, where any registered person, has not furnished returns for a continuous period of 6 (six) months. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 has laid down the procedure for cancellation of the registration.

¶32

9. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 being the bone of contention, is extracted herein below:

¶33

“Rule 22 : Cancellation of Registration

¶34

(1) Where the proper officer has reasons to believe that the registration of a person is liable to be cancelled under Section 29, he shall issue a notice to such person in FORM GST REG-17, requiring him to show cause, within a period of seven working days from the date of the service of such notice, as to why his registration shall not be cancelled.

¶35

(2) The reply to the show cause notice issued under sub-rule [1] shall be furnished in FORM REG-18 within the period specified in the said sub-rule.

¶36

(3) Where a person who has submitted an application for cancellation of his registration is no longer liable to be registered or his registration is liable to be cancelled, the proper officer shall issue an order in FORM GST REG-19, within a period of thirty days from the date of application submitted under Rule 20 or, as Page No.# 5/7 the case may be, the date of the reply to the show cause issued under sub-rule

¶37

(1), (or under sub-rule (2A) of Rule 21A) cancel the registration, with effect from a date to be determined by him and notify the taxable person, directing

¶38

Page No.# 5/7

¶39

him to pay arrears of any tax, interest or penalty including the amount liable to be paid under sub-section (5) of Section 29.

¶40

Where the reply furnished under sub-rule (2) (or in response to the notice issued under sub-rule (2A) of Rule 21A) is found to be satisfactory, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORM GST REG-20 : Provided that where the person instead of replying to the notice served under sub rule (1) for contravention of the provisions contained in Clause (b) or Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 29, furnishes all the pending returns and makes full payment of the tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORM GST REG-20.

¶41

(5) The provisions of sub-rule (3) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the legal heirs of a deceased proprietor, as if the application had been submitted by the proprietor himself.”

¶42

10. It is discernible from a reading of the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 2017 that if a person, who has been served with a show cause notice under Section 29(2)(c) of the Act, is ready and willing to furnish all the pending returns and to make full payment of the tax itself along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer, duly empowered, can drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form i.e. Form GST REG-20.

¶43

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to an Order dated 25.02.2026 passed in a writ petition being WP(C) No.1056/2026 (Shri Pratik Raj Gautam vs. The Union of India & 3 Ors.) wherein, the petitioner therein was similarly situated like the present petitioner.

¶44

12. Shri Keyal, learned Senior Standing Counsel has, however submitted that the

¶45

Page No.# 6/7

¶46

aforesaid order cannot be applicable inasmuch as in that case, the Second Appellate Forum was not functional whereas in the present case, there is a Second Appellate Forum which is functioning. The learned Senior Standing Counsel has also raised an objection that in this case, an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed on 25.02.2026 and there is a provision for filing a second appeal.

¶47

13. Having regard to the fact that the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the Act, for the reason that the petitioners did not submit returns for a period of 6 (six) months and more and the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and cancellation of registration entails serious civil consequences, this Court is of the considered view that in the event the petitioner approach the officer, duly empowered, by furnishing all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer duly empowered, may consider to drop the proceedings and pass an appropriate order in the prescribed Form.

¶48

14. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner shall approach the concerned authority within a period of 2 (two) months from today seeking restoration of her GST registration. If the petitioner submits such an application and complies with all the requirements as provided in the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the Rules, the concerned authority shall consider the application of the petitioner for restoration of GST registration in accordance with law and shall take necessary steps for restoration of GST registration of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

¶49

15. Though Shri Keyal, learned Senior Standing Counsel may be correct in the aforesaid contention, this Court has taken into consideration that the dismissal by the First Appellate Tribunal was on the ground of limitation and not on merits and

¶50

Page No.# 7/7

¶51

therefore, in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction, the present order has been passed.

¶52

16. It is needless to say that the period as stipulated under Section 73 (10) of the Central GST Act/State GST Act shall be computed from the date of the instant order, except for the financial year 2024-25, which shall be as per Section 44 of the Central GST Act/State GST Act. The petitioner herein would also be liable to make payment of arrears i.e. tax, penalty, interest and late fees. It is clarified that this order has been passed on the peculiar facts of this case and shall not be taken as a precedent.

¶53

17. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

Comparing Assistant

Sanjay Rajendra Jv v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Rajendra Jv v. the Union of India and 3 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

Chanmahammad Ali and 134 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Nikhil Narayan Deb Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Altaf Hussain and 6 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

M/S Samsir Uddin Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

M/S St Store Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

On the Death of MD Kaddus Ali His Son Namely Abdul Malek and 31 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 62 Ors.