GST Registration Can Be Restored On Filing Pending Returns, Clearing Dues Under Rule 22(4): Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court on 1 June held that a taxpayer whose GST registration has been cancelled for non-filing of returns can seek restoration of registration by furnishing pending returns and clearing tax dues, interest, penalty and late fees in terms of the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

A Bench of Justice Kardak Ete disposed of the petition filed by Md. Nekib Hussain, proprietor of Nekib Hussain, who challenged the cancellation of his GST registration and sought restoration of the same. The Bench held:

“Cancellation of GST registration entails serious civil consequences and that the statutory scheme itself contemplates restoration where the taxpayer complies with the prescribed requirements.”

The petitioner's GST registration stood suspended on 15 January 2023 and the authorities later cancelled it on 9 March 2023 for failure to file GST returns for six consecutive months.

He stated that his tax consultant's negligence caused the default, as the consultant failed to inform him about non-compliance. He also stated that he could not apply for revocation within the prescribed time and could not file pending returns due to restrictions on the GST portal.

Further, he relied on the Gauhati High Court's decision in Dhirghat Hardware Stores & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (WP(C) No. 5944/2025) and asserted that he remained willing to file all pending returns and pay the entire tax dues along with interest and late fees. He therefore sought restoration of his registration.

The GST department submitted that the issue already stood covered by the judgment in Dhirghat Hardware Stores, which involved similar facts and legal questions.

The Court referred to Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act and Rule 22 of the CGST Rules and noted that the proviso to Rule 22(4) permits a taxpayer facing cancellation for non-filing of returns to regularise the default by furnishing pending returns and paying tax, interest and late fees.

It held that cancellation of GST registration results in serious civil consequences and that the statutory scheme itself allows restoration once the taxpayer complies with the prescribed conditions. It further held that the decision in Dhirghat Hardware Stores squarely applied to the present case.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the petitioner to approach the competent authority within sixty days and seek restoration of GST registration. It further directed the authorities to consider the request expeditiously and restore the registration if the petitioner furnishes all pending returns and complies with the conditions under the proviso to Rule 22(4) in accordance with law.

For Appellant: Mr. R.S. Mishra, Ms. B. Sarma and Ms. M. Dey, Advocates

For Respondent: S.C. Keyal, Standing Counsel CGST