Smt. Jumoni Boruah Phukan v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
Smt. Jumoni Boruah Phukan filed writ in the Gauhati High Court (12 June 2026, WP(C) No. 3071 of 2026) after cancellation of her GST registration for six months’ continuous non-filing of returns; she cited financial hardship while expressing readiness to comply with the proviso to Rule 22(4) by filing all pending returns and clearing dues. The issue was whether cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) should permanently exclude a bona fide taxpayer willing to cure the default. Applying Sections 30, 44, 73 and Rule 22, the Court granted restoration subject to compliance, directed that fresh limitation periods run from the order, and confirmed full liability for tax, interest, penalty and late fee. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Aligns with Gauhati line on curing return defaults after Section 29(2)(c) cancellation. 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.44 — Annual return and reconciliation statement.
- CGST S.73 — Determination of tax not paid or short paid (non-fraud cases).
- CGST Rules R.22 — Cancellation of registration procedure.
Source documents
Similar rulings
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
Sri Chongtham Manabandra Singh v. Union of India
Sri Chongtham Manabandra Singh, a proprietorship assessee, filed writ before the Gauhati High Court (10 June 2026, WP (C) No. 3000 of 2026) against cancellation of GST registration for six months’ continuous non-filing of returns and against appellate rejection of his restoration plea. He offered to comply with the proviso to Rule 22(4) by filing pending returns and paying tax, interest, penalty and late fee. The Court permitted restoration on that basis, directed that statutory limitation under Sections 29, 30, 44 and 73 run from the order date, and required the proper officer to consider restoration expeditiously once compliance is shown. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Follows the Gauhati line treating return default as curable where cancellation is under Section 29(2)(c). Not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Sri Pankaj Kr Agarwal Alias Pankaj Agarwal v. Union of India
Sri Pankaj Kr Agarwal filed writ in the Gauhati High Court (8 June 2026, WP(C) No. 2932 of 2026) after cancellation of GST registration for six months’ non-filing of returns and inability to complete revocation within the portal timeline. He relied on coordinate bench precedents allowing restoration where the taxpayer cures the default under the proviso to Rule 22(4). Following Rule 22(4) and Sections 30, 44 and 73, the Court allowed restoration upon filing pending returns and clearing tax, interest, penalty and late fee, with Section 73(10) limitation computed from the order except for financial year 2024-25 which remains governed by Section 44. Outcome: assessee-favourable with compliance framework and remand to the proper officer for expeditious processing. Not legal advice.
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.