The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was not received and delay occurred due to unfamiliarity with GST procedures, without any intention to evade tax. Since pending returns had already been filed and the petitioner was willing to pay applicable tax, interest, late fee and penalty, the High Court relied on earlier decisions and held that restoration relief should be granted. Authorities were directed to consider restoration after verifying statutory compliance.

The assessee assailed an order under section 74(9) of the CGST Act on the ground that the underlying show cause notice impermissibly clubbed multiple financial years (2019-20 to 2023-24), allegedly rendering the proceedings without jurisdiction and time-barred. The revenue raised a preliminary objection that an efficacious statutory appeal under section 107 was available. The High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, holding that limitation and jurisdictional objections could be agitated before the appellate authority and the belated writ sought to stall the statutory process.

The assessee’s GST registration was retrospectively cancelled by an order dated 01.09.2025 without any prior show cause notice proposing retrospective cancellation. Relying on its earlier decision in Bansal Casting and the Supreme Court ruling in Oryx Fisheries on fairness in show cause proceedings, the High Court held that retrospective cancellation under Section 29 requires prior notice stating grounds/material and an opportunity to respond. The cancellation order was therefore quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh as per law.

The writ challenged cancellation of the assessee’s GST registration for failure to file GSTR-3B returns and for not replying to a show cause notice. The assessee claimed non-receipt of the notice, health-related delay, and subsequent payment of tax dues, but restoration was denied due to delay. The Gauhati High Court, following its earlier decisions, disposed of the petition by allowing the assessee to apply for restoration and directing the proper officer to consider restoration under the proviso to Rule 22(4) upon filing pending returns and paying dues with interest/late fee.