High Court of Gauhati12 June 2026

Smt. Jumoni Boruah Phukan v. Union of India

For assessee

WP(C) NO. 3071 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns for six months and petitioner cited financial hardship while expressing readiness to comply with proviso to Rule 22(4), restoration relief was warranted, with restoration subject to compliance, fresh limitation to run from this order, and petitioner remaining liable for all outstanding tax, interest, penalty and late fee

Provisions considered

Section 30, read with sections 44 and 73, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 22 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Assam Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Calcutta High Court24 Sept 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Joydeb Karmakar @ Jaydeb Karmakar v. Union of India

Where registration was cancelled due to non-updation of bank details following separation from joint account, and no fraud or evasion was alleged, such lapse was curable by furnishing correct particulars, thus one opportunity to prove bona fide was warranted and cancellation was quashed subject to compliance, pending returns and dues being filed for restoration of registration

Gujarat High Court18 Sept 2026

For assessee

Neptune Enterprise v. State of Gujarat

Where tax authority cancelled registration of assessee-firm retrospectively citing fraud or suppression but failed to consider request for more time to submit key documents, and passed order without deciding on such request or examining supporting evidence, such cancellation violated principles of natural justice and was set aside. GST: Where petitioners' registration cancellation was followed by revocation proceedings requiring immediate payment via DRC-03 and rejection relied on purchases from dealers whose registration was cancelled suo motu without prior notice to petitioners, imposition of payment and reliance on uncommunicated grounds amounted to jurisdictional overreach, rendering rejection order unsustainable and liable to be quashed. GST: Where registration was cancelled and revocation was rejected, but appellate authority introduced new grounds beyond original show cause notice, and opportunity to submit documents was denied at cancellation stage, such orders were quashed as non-application of mind and prejudicial amalgamation of issues warranted setting aside of cancellation and appeal with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings with due process

GSTAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2026

For revenue

Md Qamaruddin Khan v. YRK Constructions

Where assessee's registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GSTR-3B for six months and, upon filing all pending returns and taxes, revocation was allowed, FAA erred by not mandating recovery of interest, late fee and penalty, so penalty was imposed and revenue permitted to collect all ancillary dues in compliance with Rule 23(1)

Related rulings

Calcutta High Court24 Sept 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Smt. Jumoni Boruah Phukan v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Smt. Jumoni Boruah Phukan v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Joydeb Karmakar @ Jaydeb Karmakar v. Union of India

Neptune Enterprise v. State of Gujarat

Md Qamaruddin Khan v. YRK Constructions

Read the full analysis