Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040002512025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/70/2025 Ms Yassung Yangfo Daughter of Semey Bagang, resident of village Laching Bagang, PO and PS Chayang Tajo, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh and carrying on a proprietorship business in the trade name of M/s Yasung Construction. VERSUS The Union of India and 2 Ors represented by the Secretary, Govt of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) North Block, New Delhi. 2:The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Itanagar Age: 0 Occupation : Sector A Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax Age: 0 Occupation : Bhalukpong Range Bhalukpong Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Eddie Payeng, S K Sarma Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, M K Boro,DSGI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY Page No.# 2/4 ORDER Date : 24-02-2025 Heard Mr. S. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI, representing respondent No.1 and Mr. M. K. Boro, learned Standing Counsel for GST, representing respondents No.2 and 3. 2. The petitioner is engaged in execution of work contract and is an SSC registered under the provision of GST Act, 2017 and he has GST registration being Registration No.12AELPY6793H1ZT w.e.f 29.12.2021. It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the registration under GST Act, the petitioner has been regularly submitting his GST returns, however, due to severe personal problems his GST return could not be submitted for a continuous period w.e.f. August, 2023 to April, 2024. Accordingly, on 12.03.2024, the respondent No.3 issued a Show-Cause Notice upon the petitioner to show cause as why his registration should not be cancelled for not filing the return for the aforesaid period. 3. Thereafter, by an order dated 20.04.2024, under Reference Number (ARN):AA1203240008005, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled. Though, there is a provision of appeal, however, the petitioner did not approach the appellate authority as in the meantime, the period of limitation prescribed was over. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that appellate authority is not Page No.# 3/4 vested with any power and jurisdiction to condone delay beyond 1(one) month after the expiring of 3(three) months and therefore, the petitioner has approach this Court having no other alternative efficacious remedy. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to an order dated 03.01.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench in WP(C) 7057/2024 (Krishanu Borthakur Vs. Union of India) and argues that by the aforesaid order, the GST registration was restored in a similar facts and circumstances. 5. Mr. M. K. Boro, learned Standing Counsel for the GST has not disputed the position that in the similar circumstances, the GST registration was restored upon complete payment of all dues, if any. And therefore, he contends that he has instruction that similar order may be passed in this case subject to payment of all dues. 6. Considering the matter in entirety and taking note of the determination made by the coordinate Bench in the case of Krishanu Borthakur (Supra) and also taking note of the consensus arrived at the bar, the impugned order dated 20.04.2024 is hereby interfered with and set aside. It is directed that the respondent No.3 i.e. the Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax, Bhalukpung Range will intimate the petitioner the total outstanding statutory dues, if any, standing in the name of the petitioner till the date of cancellation of GST registration. Upon such payment of statutory dues under GST by the petitioner, the respondent authorities will pass appropriate orders to revoke the cancellation of GST registration and thereby, restore the GST registration of the petitioner. Page No.# 4/4 7. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant