Sunders Kitchen (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
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.
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.22 — Cancellation of registration procedure.
- CGST Rules R.23 — Revocation of cancellation of registration.
Source documents
Similar rulings
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.
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
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
Ganpati Rice Mill v. Union of India
Ganpati Rice Mill, a registered proprietorship, filed writ before the Gauhati High Court (10 June 2026, WP(C) No. 3046 of 2026) against GST registration cancellation for non-filing of returns and failure to respond after suspension. The question was whether restoration remained available upon belated compliance. Following Section 29, Section 30 and Rule 22, the Court held that a taxpayer may seek restoration by furnishing pending returns and paying outstanding tax, interest, penalty and late fee; upon such compliance the proper officer must consider restoration per applicable rules. The petition was disposed of in favour of the assessee with directions to the authority to process restoration in line with prior Gauhati precedents on Rule 22(4). This summary is for professional awareness only and is 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.