Dhingra Glass v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
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.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.30 — Revocation of cancellation of registration.
- CGST S.29 — Cancellation or suspension of GST registration.
- CGST Rules R.23 — Revocation of cancellation of registration.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the assessee
Munna Chaudhary v. Union of India
Munna Chaudhary, a works contractor, succeeded in the Patna High Court (17 July 2026, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4593 of 2026) against cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns without affording personal hearing, and against subsequent rejection of revocation where the SCN lacked officer identity and mandatory Document Identification Number. The petitioner argued that cancellation and rejection orders were passed in violation of audi alteram partem and centralised communication norms. Under Section 29, Rule 22, Section 30, Section 160 and Rule 23, hearing and proper notice forms are mandatory before registration is cancelled or restoration is denied; appellate orders that overlooked these defects suffered jurisdictional error. Impugned orders were set aside and registration directed restored subject to lawful compliance by the assessee. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Highlights compliance with natural justice and DIN requirements in registration proceedings. Not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
Sunders Kitchen (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
Sunders Kitchen (P.) Ltd. approached the Bombay High Court (24 June 2026, Writ Petition No. 503 of 2026) after cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of GSTR-3B, in circumstances where the department did not allege fraud, fake billing or intentional tax evasion. The company undertook to pay all outstanding GST with applicable interest, late fee and penalty and to remain compliant prospectively. Under Sections 29 and 30 read with Rules 22 and 23, the Court directed restoration of registration upon fulfilment of that payment undertaking, with the explicit condition that failure to pay would result in dismissal of the petition. Outcome: in favour of the assessee on payment condition. Useful for food and hospitality companies seeking restoration after pure compliance default. Not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
Super Traders v. Union of India
Super Traders, a partnership dealing in uniforms and furniture, filed writ in the Gauhati High Court (8 June 2026, WP(C) No. 2949 of 2026) after cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns; it had thereafter filed all pending returns and offered full compliance with the proviso to Rule 22(4) including payment of tax arrears, interest, penalty and late fees. The issue was whether restoration must be granted where the default that led to cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) had been cured before the Court. Restoration was held permissible upon timely application and payment in line with prior Gauhati precedent under Sections 29 and 30 and Rules 22 and 23, with directions to the proper officer to process restoration expeditiously. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
Smti Ivy Dutta v. Union of India
Smti Ivy Dutta approached the Gauhati High Court (8 June 2026, WP(C) No. 2913 of 2026) after registration cancellation for non-filing of returns and alleged non-response to a show-cause notice, and after her attempt at revocation faced procedural hurdles on the portal. The issue was whether she retained access to restoration under Sections 29 and 30 and Rules 22 and 23 once she was willing to regularize compliance. Following coordinate bench decisions on similar facts, the Court held the assessee may apply within sixty days from the order, file all pending returns and pay tax, interest, penalty and late fee, whereupon the authority must consider restoration expeditiously in accordance with the proviso to Rule 22(4). Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Consistent with Gauhati jurisprudence on Rule 22(4) compliance paths. Summary only; not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
Bhushan Chandra Deka v. Union of India
The Gauhati High Court (1 June 2026, WP(C) No. 2730 of 2026) considered a works-contract proprietor whose GST registration was suspended and cancelled in 2024 after six months of non-filing of returns, following an unsuccessful appeal. The petitioner attributed the default to serious burn injuries from an LPG blast and stated that the statutory window for revocation on the portal had closed. Relying on Section 29(2)(c) and the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, and aligning with Dhirghat Hardware Stores, the Court held that cancellation carries serious civil consequences and that a taxpayer willing to cure the default may still be restored. The writ was allowed in favour of the assessee: the petitioner may apply within sixty days, file all pending returns, and pay tax, interest, penalty and late fee; the proper officer must consider restoration expeditiously. Limitation under Section 73(10) runs from the order date, except FY 2024-25 under Section 44. This is a case-law summary, not legal advice.