Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040006532025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/189/2025 Smti Tayo Devi Daughter of Tayo Nima, a resident of Damsite Naharlagun, near Saint Francise School, Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh 791110 and carrying on proprietorship trade business in the name of M/s Lokam Taong Enterprise. VERSUS The Union of India and 2 Ors represented by the Secretary, Minister of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 110001 2:The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar A Sector Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh 791110 3:The Superintendent Age: 0 Occupation : CGST and Service Tax Koloriang Range Koloriang Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Gyamar Jeevan, Risso Aking,Migo Laye Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, M K Boro,DSGI BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY Page No.# 2/6 ORDER 29-04-2025 1. Heard Mr. M Laye, learned counsel for the petitioner, Also heard Mr. Z Taba, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. M Kato, learned DSGI and Mr. MK Boro, learned standing counsel for the CGST. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she has been carrying out her business under the name & style, “M/s Lokam Taong Enterprise”. She is the sole proprietor and is an Assesee registered under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act bearing registration No. GSTIN 12CCQPD2106J1ZZ. Because of non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice bearing reference No. ZA120424000350J dated 05.04.2025 asking her to reply as to furnishing the returns for a continuous period of six months. According to the petitioner, due to severe health issue, detachment from day to day life activities and being resident of one of the interior district and place, which lacks sufficient means of communication and as the petitioner lost her GST user ID and Password in the process, could not file the return and also could not respond reply the show cause notice and also failed to take steps for filling the defaulted returns. Accordingly, by order No. ZA1205240004357 dated 06.05.2024 the respondent No. 3 cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Page No.# 3/6 4. Mr. Laye, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that due to reasons beyond her control, the petitioner could not submit the returns required to be submitted under Section 39(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for a period of about 6 (six) months or more. However, he has submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with all the formalities required as per proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. 5. As per Section 29(2)(c), an officer, duly empowered, may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he deems fit, where any registered person, has not furnished returns for a continuous period of 6 (six) months. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 has laid down the procedure for cancellation of the registration. 6. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 being bone of contention is quoted herein below:- “Rule 22 : Cancellation of Registration (1) Where the proper officer has reasons to believe that the registration of a person is liable to be cancelled under Section 29, he shall issue a notice to such person in FORM GST REG-17, requiring him to show cause, within a period of seven working days from the date of the service of such notice, as to why his registration shall not be cancelled. (2) The reply to the show cause notice issued under sub-rule [1] shall be furnished in FORM REG-18 within the period specified in the said sub-rule. Page No.# 4/6 (3) Where a person who has submitted an application for cancellation of his registration is no longer liable to be registered or his registration is liable to be cancelled, the proper officer shall issue an order in FORM GST REG-19, within a period of thirty days from the date of application submitted under Rule 20 or, as the case may be, the date of the reply to the show cause issued under sub-rule (1), (or under sub-rule (2A) of Rule 21A) cancel the registration, with effect from a date to be determined by him and notify the taxable person, directing him to pay arrears of any tax, interest or penalty including the amount liable to be paid under sub-section (5) of Section 29. (4) Where the reply furnished under sub-rule (2) (or in response to the notice issued under sub-rule (2A) of Rule 21A) is found to be satisfactory, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORM GST REG-20 : Provided that where the person instead of replying to the notice served under sub rule (1) for contravention of the provisions contained in Clause (b) or Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 29, furnishes all the pending returns and makes full payment of the tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORM GST REG- 20. (5) The provisions of sub-rule (3) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the legal heirs of a deceased proprietor, as if the application had been submitted by the proprietor himself. 7. It is discernible from a reading of the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules 2017 that if a person, who has been served with a Page No.# 5/6 show cause notice under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, is ready and willing to furnish all the pending returns and to make full payment of the tax itself along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer, duly empowered, can drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form i.e. Form GST REG-20. 8. The learned counsel for the parties have also referred to an Order dated 11.10.2023 passed in a writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 6366/2023 (Sanjoy Nath vs. The Union of India and others) wherein the petitioner therein was similarly situated like the present petitioner. 9. Having regard to the fact that the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the reason that the petitioner did not submit returns for a period of 6 (six) months and more; and the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and cancellation of registration entails serious civil consequences, this Court is of the considered view that in the event the petitioner approaches the officer, duly empowered, by furnishing all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer duly empowered, has the authority and jurisdiction to drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form. 10. 10. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner shall approach the concerned authority within a period of 2 (two) months from today seeking restoration of his GST registration. If the petitioner submits such an application and complies with all the requirements as provided in the proviso to sub- Page No.# 6/6 rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the concerned authority shall consider the application of the petitioner for restoration of her GST registration in accordance with law and shall take necessary steps for restoration of GST registration of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. 11. With the observations made and the direction given above, the writ petition is disposed of. No cost. 12. It is needless to say that the period as stipulated under Section 73 (10) of the Central GST Act/State GST Act shall be computed from the date of the instant judgment, except for the financial year 2024-25, which shall be as per Section 44 of the Central GST Act/State GST Act. The petitioner herein also be liable to make payment of arrears i.e. tax, penalty, interest and late fees. JUDGE Comparing Assistant