2025(05)LCX0540
Jenia Namchoom
Versus
Union of India
WP(C) 221/2025 decided on 27-05-2025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : WP(C)/221/2025
Jenia Namchoom
Son of Thing Namchoom, resident of Momong, Namsai, Lohit, Arunachal Pradesh
792103 and carrying on a proprietorship business in the trade name of M/s FRAA
TAKA INFRATECH
VERSUS
The Union of India and 2 Ors
represented by the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Finance
(Department of
Revenue) North block, New Delhi.
2:The Commissioner of CGST and
Central
Excise
Age: 0
Occupation :
Itanagar
Sector A
Naharlagun
Arunachal Pradesh.
3:The Superintendent of Central
Goods and Service Tax
Age: 0
Occupation :
Namsai Range
Namsai
Arunachal Pradesh
Advocate for the Petitioner : Shantanu Kumar Sarma, Eddie Payeng
Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, DSGI,M K Boro
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 27.05.2025
Heard Mr. S.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.K. Boro, learned standing counsel for the respondents in the CGST.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.05.2024, passed by the respondent No. 3/Superintendent of Central Goods and Services Tax, Namsai Range, Namsai, Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled.
3. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been carrying on business of work contract services under the name and style of M/s FRAA TAKA INFRATECH and on account of his illness, he could not file his GST returns for a continuous period of more than six months, and thereafter, the respondent No. 3 had issued a show cause notice to him and his GST registration was cancelled. Mr. Sarma also submits that the petitioner came to know about cancellation of his GST registration only when he resumed his business work on the later part of March, 2025, and thereafter, he immediately filed his pending GST returns till May, 2024 i.e. the month in which his registration was cancelled and also paid all the taxes and late fines/penalties payable thereon, however, he was not permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation of his registration under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 23(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as the limitation period including the extended period had already expired. Mr. Sarma further submits that thereafter, the petitioner had preferred one appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107(1) of the Act praying for setting aside the impugned order, but the same was also dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation. Mr. Sarma also submits that in the case of Ms Yassung Yangfo vs the Union of India and 2 Ors., in WP(C) No. 70/2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 24.02.2025, had granted relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, restoring the GST registration of the petitioner therein, and as such, similar relief may be granted to the petitioner herein also.
4. Mr. Boro, learned standing counsel for the respondents in the CGST has not controverted to the submission of Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order dated 04.05.2024, annexed as Annexure-3 in this petition.
6. I have also perused Annexure-4 Colly, which indicates that the petitioner has submitted his GST returns up to May, 2024.
7. Further, it appears that in the case of Ms Yassung Yangfo vs the Union of India and 2 Ors., in WP(C) No. 70/2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 24.02.2025, relying upon a decision of another Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 7057/2024 (Krishanu Borthakur vs. Union of India), had interfered with the GST cancellation order and also directed the Superintendent, Central Goods and Services Tax, Bhalukpung Range to intimate the petitioner therein the total outstanding statutory dues, if any, standing in the name of the petitioner till the date of cancellation of the GST registration.
8. Mr. Boro, learned standing counsel for the respondents in the CGST submits that he has no objection in the event of passing similar order in the present petition also.
9. Taking note of the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, the impugned cancellation order dated 04.05.2024 (Annexure-3 of this petition) is interfered with and accordingly, the same stands set aside and quashed. The respondent No. 3 is directed to intimate the petitioner if any statutory dues are pending and if any such dues are pending, then upon payment of the said dues, the respondent No. 3 will pass appropriate order to restore the GST registration of the petitioner.
10. The aforesaid exercise has to be carried out within period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent No. 3 within a period of one week from today.
11. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of at this motion stage itself.
JUDGE