JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. M. Barman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the cancellation of their registration in terms with Section 39 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST Act of 2017’). 3. The materials on record reveal that the Petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm duly registered under the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’) and the Petitioner No.2 is its partner and authorized representative. The Petitioners upon registration under the Act of 2017 was provided with the GSTIN/Unique ID bearing No.18ABUFA5174E1Z4. 4. On account of non-submission of the returns, which is required in terms with Section 39 of the CGST Act of 2017 (which the Petitioners do not deny in the instant petition), a Show Cause Notice was issued on 12.08.2024 asking the Petitioners as to why their registration should not be cancelled. In addition to that, it was also mentioned that their registration would stand suspended w.e.f. 12.08.2024 itself. 5. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners were not aware of such notice and as such did not file any reply. As no reply had been filed, the Respondent No.3 passed an order dated 06.11.2024 cancelling the registration of the Petitioners. However, it was mentioned in the said cancellation order dated 06.11.2024 that the licence was cancelled as the Petitioners had failed to furnish the returns. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners intended to file an appeal against the cancellation of their GST registration; however, the prescribed period of three months for filing the appeal, along with the additional period of one month, had already expired. The learned counsel further submitted that, as the limitation period for filing an application for revocation of the order cancelling the GST registration had also expired, the Petitioners have approached this Court. 7. In this regard, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that the issue involved in the instant proceedings is no longer res- integra, taking into account that this Court had already dealt with similar issues in the case of Motaleb Bhuyan Vs. 7. In this regard, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that the issue involved in the instant proceedings is no longer res- integra, taking into account that this Court had already dealt with similar issues in the case of Motaleb Bhuyan Vs. The State Of Assam And Others reported in (2025) SCC OnLine Gau 1429 8. It is the opinion of this Court that similar directions which have been passed at paragraph No.50 of the said judgment can be passed in the instant proceedings. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The order of cancellation of registration dated 06.11.2024 is set aside and quashed. (ii) The Petitioners herein are directed to file the returns for the entire period for which order of cancellation of registration was passed till date within 30 days from the date of the instant judgment. It is observed that if in the meantime, the Petitioners had submitted any return for any period, the directions passed in the instant Clause shall be restricted to the period when the Petitioner did not file the returns. (iii) The period as stipulated in Section 73(10) of the CGST Act of 2017 shall be computed from the date of the instant judgment, except for the financial year 2025-26, which shall be as per Section 44 of the CGST Act of 2017. (iv) The Petitioners herein also shall be liable to make payment of the arrears i.e. tax, penalty, interest and late fees.