Case Details: Sama Yangfo vs. Union of India (2026) 42 Centax 10 (Gau.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.
- S/Shri Duge Soki, T Nima & Minter Karbak, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Marto Kato, SC Central Excise, Customs & Tania Kipa, DSGI, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, a sole proprietor registered under the CGST Act, had not filed returns for a continuous period of six months. A show-cause notice was issued proposing cancellation of registration for non-filing, and no reply was furnished. The registration was cancelled. After cancellation, the assessee stated that all pending returns had been furnished and GST, along with interest and late fee, had been paid. It was also stated that the application for revocation of cancellation could not be filed as the time limit prescribed for filing such an application had elapsed. The matter was placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the proviso to Rule 22(4) permits the empowered officer to drop cancellation proceedings when the person furnishes all pending returns and pays full tax, along with interest and late fee. The Court further held that cancellation of registration entails serious civil consequences. It was also held that the assessee was to be allowed to approach the authority within two months. Accordingly, the authority was directed to consider the restoration application in accordance with law and take necessary steps for restoration of GST registration upon compliance, and the assessee remained liable for arrears, including tax, interest, late fee and penalty.
List of Cases Cited
- Mokibur Rahman v. Union of India — (2025) 33 Centax 195 (Gau.) — Referred [Para 12]
