In the early years of GST implementation, many taxpayers faced significant procedural challenges due to the newness and complexity of the regime. One such recurring issue has been the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns, followed by rejection of revocation applications on the ground of delay beyond the statutory time limit.
In [2026] 182 taxmann.com 895 (Uttarakhand), the Uttarakhand High Court adopted a liberal and pragmatic approach while dealing with a delayed revocation request. The Court held that since GST was still at a nascent stage and businessmen had limited understanding of compliance requirements, the delay in filing the revocation application deserved condonation. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation along with filing of pending returns and payment of applicable dues.
This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural lapses, especially during the formative phase of GST, should not permanently deprive a taxpayer of the right to continue business when compliance can be ensured through reasonable conditions.
Case Name
Rakesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand & Others
(Uttarakhand High Court)
Reported in [2026] 182 taxmann.com 895 (Uttarakhand)
Decision dated 22-01-2026
Issue
GST registration of a taxpayer was cancelled by the department because the petitioner failed to file GST returns for the required period. No revocation application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017 was filed within the statutory timeline (90 days). The taxpayer approached the High Court after the statutory period lapsed.
High Court Decision (Uttarakhand HC)
The High Court — acknowledging the nascent stage of the GST regime and widespread difficulties among taxpayers in understanding procedural aspects — condoned the delay in filing the revocation application despite the statutory limitation having expired. The court held that:
- Nascent GST Regime & Limited Understanding:
The early years of GST implementation involved significant technical and procedural learning curves for ordinary businessmen, and many did not fully grasp the statutory timelines and requirements. The court factored this into its decision to condone the delay. - Impact on Livelihood & Revenue:
Cancellation of GST registration directly affects the taxpayer’s ability to legally carry on business, thereby impacting livelihood. It also affects State revenue since unregistered economic activity falls outside the tax net. The court emphasized the need to protect both taxpayer interests and revenue considerations. - Directions to Petitioner:
The petitioner was permitted to file the revocation application beyond the 90-day period. The Court directed that:- The taxpayer must file the revocation application within a specified period (e.g., three weeks as per similar rulings) after the order;
- All pending GST returns up to the effective cancellation date must be furnished along with the application;
- All tax dues, interest, penalties, and late fees must be paid;
- The tax authority is to decide the application on merits within a reasonable time after its filing.
- Case Context:
While the specific Taxmann Research citation number (e.g., [2026] 182 taxmann.com 895) could not be accessed directly via the search, the reported position aligns with the established judicial trend in Uttarakhand where delay in filing GST revocation applications was condoned in light of procedural complexities and livelihood concerns.
Practical Takeaway
- A GST registration cancellation due solely to non-filing of returns does not automatically bar relief if the taxpayer can show extraordinary circumstances (e.g., nascent GST understanding).
-
High Courts, including Uttarakhand, have shown a liberal approach towards condoning delays for revocation of GST cancellation applications when procedural confusion is shown and livelihood implications are significant.