Ajijul Haque @ Hoque v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
Ajijul Haque @ Hoque challenged cancellation of GST registration before the High Court of Calcutta (WPA No. 1964 of 2026, decided 7 September 2026). Registration was cancelled for six-month default in filing returns without specific allegation of tax evasion; the petitioner undertook to file all pending returns and pay outstanding dues. Under Sections 29 and 30 of the CGST Act, the court found abrupt cancellation counterproductive to revenue recovery where compliance could be restored through conditional relief. The cancellation order was set aside subject to the petitioner fulfilling filing and payment requirements within directed timelines, enabling restoration of registration upon compliance. Outcome favoured the assessee on conditional terms rather than unconditional reinstatement. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for exact findings.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.29 — Cancellation or suspension of GST registration.
- CGST S.30 — Revocation of cancellation of registration.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Joydeb Karmakar @ Jaydeb Karmakar v. Union of India
Joydeb Karmakar challenged before the Calcutta High Court (24 September 2026, WPA No. 10299 of 2026) the cancellation of his GST registration for not updating bank details after separating from a joint account, with no allegation of fraud or evasion. The department had treated the stale bank mapping as grounds for cancellation under Section 29 rather than as a correctable registration defect. The issue was whether such an administrative lapse warranted cancellation without a curative opportunity and without examining whether the taxpayer continued to conduct genuine business. The Court treated the defect as rectifiable under Rules 10A and 21 read with Sections 29 and 30, emphasizing that cancellation is a drastic remedy where particulars can be updated on the portal. Cancellation was quashed subject to the assessee proving bona fides, filing pending returns and clearing dues for restoration. Outcome: assessee-favourable with remand and compliance conditions. One opportunity to correct particulars was held warranted where misconduct was not alleged. Editorial summary; not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
Sri Nur Alom v. Union of India
Sri Nur Alom challenged before the Gauhati High Court (11 September 2026, WP (C) No. 4971 of 2026) cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns and dismissal of his restoration appeal as time-barred, leaving him without a registration needed for ongoing trade. The petitioner undertook to file all pending returns and pay tax, interest and penalty if cancellation were set aside. Writ relief set aside cancellation on condition of filing pending returns within thirty days with requisite payments; limitation under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) was directed to run from the present order except where Section 44 governed annual return timelines. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Shows writ courts granting compliance-based restoration when appellate forums reject on delay alone. Not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
SRD Groups v. State of Assam
SRD Groups succeeded in the Gauhati High Court (7 September 2026, WP(C) No. 4818 of 2026) where GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns and failure to respond to the departmental notice, leaving the petitioner unable to carry on lawful business. The writ sought restoration on undertaking to regularize returns. The Court allowed restoration subject to filing all pending returns within thirty days and confirmed continued liability for tax, interest, penalty and late fee under Sections 29, 30, 39, 44, 73 and 74, aligning limitation for demand with the date of the court order where applicable. Outcome: in favour of the assessee on compliance terms. Typical Gauhati restoration template after return-default cancellation under Section 29(2)(c). Editorial summary only; not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
Ramalingam Chellapppa v. Superintendent
Ramalingam Chellapppa approached the Madras High Court (1 September 2026, WP (MD) No. 25121 of 2026) for restoration after cancellation of his GST registration following default in return compliance. The department opposed restoration on the same grounds litigated in earlier Madras High Court jurisprudence. The Court followed Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center v. Appellate Deputy and held the controversy fully covered by that precedent under Sections 29 and 30 of the CGST Act, requiring no fresh merits inquiry where facts and legal issues were indistinguishable. Cancellation was set aside and registration directed restored subject to specified compliance conditions including filing of pending returns and payment of statutory dues. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Illustrates binding effect of coordinate bench rulings on parallel registration-restoration facts. Summary for professionals; not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
Dhingra Glass v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax
Before the Uttarakhand High Court (10 August 2026, Writ Petition Misc. Bench No. 280 of 2026), Dhingra Glass challenged cancellation of its GST registration and an appellate dismissal confined to limitation. The assessee offered to file all outstanding returns and pay tax, interest and penalty in full. The issue was whether writ relief could open a path to revocation despite the missed appellate timeline. The Court reasoned that where the appeal failed only on delay and substantive compliance was forthcoming, the statutory scheme for cancellation and restoration under Sections 29 and 30 and Rule 23 should still be accessible. Outcome: decided in favour of the assessee—the petitioner was granted liberty to apply for revocation after compliance, with a direction that the authority decide that application on merits in accordance with law. Key provisions: CGST Sections 29 and 30 and Rule 23. Editorial summary for practitioners; not legal advice.