“Landmark High Court Judgments on GST: Enforcement, Penalties, and Taxpayer Relief”

Section 130 of the CGST Act cannot be invoked to deal with excess Stock found in the GST Survey: High Court.

Below is a professional, detailed analysis of the Allahabad High Court decision (State of U.P. Through Deputy Commissioner v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal) Commercial Tax, Aligarh & Anr., Writ Tax Nos. 609, 611, 614, 618 & 619 of 2024; Order dated 10 Nov 2025),

1) Case Snapshot

Court: Allahabad High Court
Date: 10 November 2025
Nature of dispute: Whether Section 130 (confiscation) read with Section 122 (penalty) can be invoked only because “excess stock” is found during a GST survey at business premises.

2) Core Issue Before the Court

Whether, when unaccounted / excess stock is detected during a survey at the registered business premises, the Department can start confiscation proceedings under Section 130 (along with penalty under Section 122), or whether the Proper Officer must follow the tax determination mechanism under Sections 73/74, as indicated by Section 35(6).

3) Statutory Scheme Applied by the Court

A. Section 35 – Accounts & Records (Key Trigger)

The Court emphasised Section 35(1), which requires every registered person to keep and maintain accurate and correct accounts at the principal place of business.

B. Section 35(6) – What to do if goods are “not accounted for”

Section 35(6) is decisive: if a taxable person fails to account for goods as required, then the Proper Officer shall determine the tax payable, and Sections 73/74 shall apply (mutatis mutandis) for that determination.

Meaning in practical terms:
When “excess/unaccounted stock” is found, the law itself directs the Department to move through the assessment/demand route (Sections 73/74)—not the confiscation route.

4) Why Section 130 Was Held Inapplicable Here

A. Nature of Section 130 (confiscation) vs. “excess stock in survey”

Section 130 is a confiscation provision. The Court held it cannot be used as a substitute for the specific statutory mechanism provided for unaccounted goods under Section 35(6) read with Sections 73/74.

B. Binding precedent already settled the point

The respondents relied in those matters. The Court recorded that the State’s counsel could not dispute the legal proposition laid down in those decisions.

In effect, the controversy was treated as res integra (a matter already settled), and the Court applied the settled legal position to the present matter.

5) Court’s Application of Law to the Facts

The Court noted that:

The premises were surveyed (01.09.2022) and discrepancies/excess stock were alleged.
On that basis, proceedings were initiated under Section 130 read with Section 122.

Given Section 35(6)’s scheme and binding precedent, the Court held that such initiation under Section 130 was legally inappropriate, and the Proper Officer must proceed under Sections 73/74 for determination of tax (as applicable on facts).

6) Outcome / Directions

The Court did not interfere with the impugned orders in the manner reflected in the order’s final disposal (i.e., it disposed of the connected petitions following the settled proposition).
Notably, it directed that any amount deposited be refunded within one month upon production of a certified copy of the order.

7) Practical Significance (What this ruling reinforces)

Excess/unaccounted stock found during survey ≠ automatic confiscation.
Section 35(6) acts as a statutory gateway: if goods are not adequately accounted for, the Department must compute the tax under Sections 73 and 74.
The ruling strengthens procedural discipline: confiscation provisions should not be used to short-circuit adjudication meant for tax determination.

png-7 Download

Non-Filing of Part-B of E-Way Bill Due to Technical Error Does Not Attract Penalty under Section 129(3) – Allahabad High Court

1. Case Details

Case Name: Archana Plasmould vs. State of U.P. & Others
Court: Allahabad High Court
Date of Decision: 10 November 2025
Writ Petition No.: Writ Tax No. 1592 of 2025
State: Uttar Pradesh

2. Issue Before the Court

Whether penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 can be imposed solely for non-filling of Part-B of the e-way bill, when:

the omission occurred due to a technical glitch, and
there is no evidence or finding of intention to evade tax.

3. Factual Background

On 25 July 2024, the petitioner’s goods were intercepted during transit.
Part-B of the e-way bill had not been filled, though all other documents accompanying the goods were found to be valid.
The authorities initiated detention and penalty proceedings under Section 129(3) of the GST Act.
Aggrieved by the penalty orders, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition.

4. Submissions of the Parties

A. Petitioner’s Contentions

The failure to fill Part-B of the e-way bill was due to a technical glitch and not deliberate.
There was no intention to evade tax, nor any allegation supported by evidence to that effect.
The movement of goods was supported by proper tax invoices and documents.
Reliance was placed on binding judicial precedents holding that mere procedural lapses do not attract penalty under Section 129(3).

B. Respondent’s Stand

The State contended that Part-B of the e-way bill is mandatory for the movement of goods.
Non-compliance with this requirement itself justified the imposition of penalty under Section 129(3).

5. Statutory Provision Considered

Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017

This provision deals with penalty for detention or seizure of goods during transit for specified contraventions.

Judicial interpretation applied:
The provision must be applied in a manner consistent with intent and purpose, and cannot be invoked mechanically for every procedural lapse.

6. Court’s Analysis and Findings

A. Absence of Intent to Evade Tax

The Court found no material on record to suggest any intention on the part of the petitioner to evade tax.
The omission in filling Part-B was attributable to a technical error, not deliberate non-compliance.

B. Reliance on Settled Judicial Precedents

The Court relied upon and followed earlier binding decisions, including:

M/s Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Others
Held that penalty under Section 129 cannot be imposed in the absence of intent to evade tax.
M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P.
Clarified that technical or clerical lapses in e-way bill compliance do not justify penal action.
M/s Roli Enterprises vs. State of U.P.
Reiterated that procedural irregularities alone are insufficient to attract Section 129 penalties.

These decisions consistently establish that mens rea (intent) is a crucial element for invoking penal provisions under GST.

7. Final Decision of the Court

The impugned penalty orders under Section 129(3) were quashed.
The writ petition was allowed.
The respondents were directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the penalty proceedings within two months, upon production of a certified copy of the order.

8. Legal Significance of the Judgment

Reinforces that Section 129(3) is not an automatic penalty provision.
Emphasizes the need to distinguish between:
- genuine technical or procedural lapses, and
- deliberate acts of tax evasion.
Strengthens judicial protection against mechanical and disproportionate enforcement of GST penalties.
Aligns with the broader judicial approach favouring fairness, proportionality, and procedural integrity in GST administration.

png-8 Download

Taxpayer Cannot Be Expected to Check “Additional Orders” Tab for Main Adjudication Orders on GST Portal

Calcutta High Court Allows Appeal Despite Delay

1. Case Details

Case Name: Multireach Media Private Limited & Another vs. State of West Bengal & Others
Court: Calcutta High Court
Date of Decision: 19 November 2025
Writ Petition No.: WPA 20933 of 2025
Statute Involved:

Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 / WBGST Act, 2017

2. Background of the Case

An adjudication order dated 26 September 2023 was passed against the petitioners by the Adjudicating Authority.
The petitioners filed an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.
The Appellate Authority, by order dated 24 July 2025, dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding that it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period.
Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Calcutta High Court by way of a writ petition.

3. Core Issue Before the Court

Whether the delay in filing appeal under Section 107 could be condoned when:

the adjudication order was uploaded on the GST portal under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab, and
the taxpayer had no actual knowledge of the order within the statutory period.

4. Submissions of the Parties

A. Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners were unaware of the adjudication order dated 26 September 2023.
The order was uploaded on the GST portal under “View Additional Notices and Orders”, and not under the regular “View Notices and Orders” tab.
A registered taxpayer cannot reasonably be expected to check the “Additional Orders” tab for main adjudication orders.
Several taxpayers faced similar issues, and Co-ordinate Benches of the Calcutta High Court have condoned delay in such circumstances.
Reliance was placed on:
1. Mohammad Hasim Khan vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
  [2025 (7) TMI 1863 – Calcutta High Court]
2. Sukumar Kundu vs. Union of India & Ors.
  [2024 (7) TMI 533 – Calcutta High Court]
The petitioners also pointed out that the GST Appellate Tribunal is not yet functional, leaving them without an effective statutory remedy.

B. Respondents’ Arguments

The State supported the Appellate Authority’s order.
It was argued that the petitioners had participated in the proceedings and responded to the show-cause notice.
Therefore, the plea of lack of knowledge of the adjudication order should not be accepted.

5. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

A. GST Portal Design and Practical Difficulty

The Court noted that at the relevant time, the GST portal had multiple tabs, including:
- “View Notices and Orders”, and
- “View Additional Notices and Orders”.
The Court held that a registered taxpayer cannot be expected to routinely check the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab for final adjudication orders disposing of main proceedings.

B. Reliance on Binding Precedents

The Court relied upon and followed earlier decisions of Co-ordinate Benches:

(i) Sukumar Kundu vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court acknowledged that taxpayers faced genuine difficulty in tracking orders uploaded under incorrect portal tabs.

(ii) Mohammad Hasim Khan vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

In this case, despite the taxpayer having responded to the show-cause notice, the delay in filing appeal was condoned because:

the adjudication order was uploaded under “Additional Notices and Orders”, and
the Appellate Tribunal was non-functional.

The Court emphasized that ends of justice require appeals to be heard on merits rather than being dismissed on technical grounds.

6. Application of Law to the Present Case

The factual situation in the present case was found to be identical to the above precedents.
The petitioners were deprived of an effective appellate remedy due to:
- portal-related issues, and
- non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal.
Therefore, the petitioners deserved similar treatment as granted in earlier cases.

7. Final Decision and Directions

The matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority.
The delay in filing the appeal under Section 107 was condoned, subject to:
- payment of ₹15,000 to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.
Upon production of proof of payment:
- the Appellate Authority shall hear and decide the appeal on merits.
The impugned order dated 24 July 2025 was declared to have no effect.
The writ petition WPA 20933 of 2025 was disposed of.

8. Legal Significance of the Judgment

Confirms that taxpayers cannot be penalised for systemic and portal-related deficiencies.
Clarifies that main adjudication orders should not be hidden under “Additional Orders” tabs.
Reinforces the principle that procedural justice and access to appellate remedies must prevail over rigid limitation rules.
Particularly important in the context of the non-functional GST Appellate Tribunal.

✅ Key Takeaway

Delay in filing GST appeals can be condoned where adjudication orders are uploaded in obscure portal tabs and the taxpayer lacks effective statutory remedy. Technical limitations should not defeat substantive justice.

png-9 Download

GST Department Quoted Fake Case Laws in Show Cause Notice

Delhi High Court Cautions Departments on Responsible Use of AI Technology

1. Case Details

Case Name: J.M. Jain (Proprietor – Sh. Jeetmal Choraria) vs. Union of India & Others
Court: Delhi High Court
Date of Decision: 27 November 2025
Writ Petition No.: W.P. (C) 16754 of 2025
Connected Application: CM APPL. 68768 of 2025

2. Background of the Dispute

The Income Tax Department conducted a search operation and allegedly recovered:
- parallel books of accounts, and
- documents indicating unaccounted transactions.
Based on the said material, the GST Department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) alleging GST evasion.
The petitioner challenged the SCN before the Delhi High Court, alleging:
- improper reliance on Income Tax proceedings, and
- citation of fake / non-existent judicial precedents, allegedly generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools.

3. Core Issues Before the Court

Whether the Show Cause Notice could be quashed at the threshold.
Whether presumptions under Sections 132(4A) and 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 automatically apply to GST proceedings.
Whether evidence gathered by the Income Tax Department can be relied upon by the GST Department.
Whether unverified AI-generated judicial citations in an SCN vitiate the proceedings.

4. Statutory Provisions Considered

A. CGST Act, 2017

Section 75(2) – Procedure and safeguards in adjudication proceedings.
General powers of investigation and adjudication under the CGST framework.

B. Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 132(4A) – Presumption as to ownership and correctness of seized documents.
Section 292C – Presumption regarding documents and assets found during search.

5. Petitioner’s Arguments

Income Tax presumptions are limited:
Sections 132(4A) and 292C apply primarily to Income Tax proceedings and cannot automatically be imported into GST proceedings.
Evidence from IT search cannot be conclusive for GST liability without independent GST scrutiny.
The SCN was allegedly vague and legally flawed.
Several judgments cited in the SCN were fake or non-existent, possibly generated through AI tools.
On these grounds, the petitioner sought quashing of the SCN.

6. Stand of the Respondents

The GST Department argued that:
- material seized by the IT Department can legally be shared and examined by GST authorities.
- the GST Department independently analysed the material before issuing the SCN.
The SCN was not final; it merely initiated adjudication and afforded the petitioner full opportunity of hearing.

7. Court’s Analysis and Observations

A. Use of IT Department Evidence in GST Proceedings

The Court held that:
- Documents and statements seized by the IT Department can be furnished to GST authorities.
- However, presumptions under Sections 132(4A) and 292C are rebuttable and do not automatically determine GST liability.
For GST purposes:
- such material may trigger investigation,
- but GST authorities must independently verify and apply their own mind before confirming any demand.

B. Challenge to the SCN – Prematurity

The Court refused to quash the SCN at the notice stage.
It held that:
- the SCN was not vague,
- relevant relied-upon documents (RUDs) were disclosed, and
- the petitioner had adequate opportunity to respond.
The petition was therefore held to be premature.

C. Caution on Use of Artificial Intelligence by Departments

This is the most significant aspect of the judgment.

The Court categorically observed:

Government departments may use AI tools for:
- data analysis,
- summarisation, and
- assistance in drafting.
However, there can be no justification for:
- citing fake, incorrect, or non-existent judicial precedents.
The Court highlighted the risk of AI “hallucination”, where AI tools generate:
- fabricated citations, or
- inaccurate case references.

Strong caution issued:

The GST Department, Income Tax Department, and other authorities must:
- verify every judicial precedent before citing it,
- take full responsibility for citations, even if generated using AI software.
Judgments must be verified before issuing SCNs or finalising assessments.

8. Final Directions of the Court

The writ petition was disposed of.
The SCN was not quashed.
The petitioner was directed to:
- file a reply to the SCN, and
- raise all factual and legal objections during adjudication.
A personal hearing was directed to be granted to the petitioner.
The adjudicating authority was expected to proceed in accordance with law, uninfluenced by unverified material.

9. Legal Significance of the Judgment

Clarifies that GST authorities may rely on inter-departmental intelligence, but cannot abdicate independent verification.
Reinforces that Income Tax presumptions are rebuttable and not conclusive for GST.
Sets an important judicial warning against blind reliance on AI-generated legal content.
Establishes that technological convenience cannot override legal responsibility and due process.

✅ Key Takeaway

Artificial Intelligence may assist government departments, but it cannot replace human verification. Quoting fake or non-existent judgments—even if AI-generated—undermines the credibility of tax administration and must be strictly avoided.

png-10 Download

PoK is Part of India: Cross-LoC Trade with PoK is Not Export but an Intra-State Supply under GST

New Gee Enn & Sons & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. — J&K High Court (27 Nov 2025)

1. Case Details

Court: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Judge: Sanjeev Kumar, J.
Date: 27 November 2025
Cases: Batch of petitions including WP(C) 1938/2024 and connected matters (large batch)
Impugned action: SCNs under Section 74(1), CGST Act, 2017 read with J&K GST Act, 2017 relating to Cross-LoC trade (2017-18 & 2018-19)

2. Background Facts (as recorded by Court)

Cross-LoC trade was started as a Confidence Building Measure via SOP / Notification dated 20.10.2008 on:
- Srinagar–Muzaffarabad route, and
- Poonch–Rawalakote route.
It was a barter trade (no currency exchange) with specified lists of items (Annexure-A & B SOP).
Earlier (VAT era), Section 55 of J&K VAT Act, 2005 (amended 07.02.2012) treated Cross-LoC trade as zero-rated.
After GST rollout (effective 08.07.2017), there was no similar GST provision granting zero-rating/exemption; petitioners continued treating it as non-taxable and allegedly did not disclose these transactions in returns for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19.
DGGI information led to investigation and issuance of SCNs under Section 74(1).

3. Main Grounds Raised by Petitioners (as summarised by Court)

Cross-LoC trade is a special arrangement; not amenable to CGST/J&K GST.
SCNs under Section 74 are time-barred.
Being barter, tax demand should not arise unless matched to equal exchange.
Section 74 (fraud/suppression) not applicable; at best Section 73 applies.
Bunching of multiple FYs in one SCN is impermissible.
Writ should be entertained despite alternate remedies because SCNs are allegedly without jurisdiction.

4. Key Questions Framed by the Court

The Court framed issues including:

Nature of Cross-LoC trade (intra-state vs import/export)
Whether SCN is properly under Section 74 or essentially Section 73
Limitation under Section 74(2) read with 74(10)
Whether bunching two FYs is permissible
Whether barter causes double taxation (left open)
Whether writ is barred due to alternate remedy (Section 107)

5. Findings of the Court

A. Nature of Cross-LoC Trade: Intra-State Supply

The Court held Cross-LoC trade is trade between two parts of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, and since PoK is part of the territory of the State, the supplies are within the same State/UT; therefore, intra-state.

Statutory basis used:

Section 2(64), CGST Act, 2017 → “intra-state supply” as per Section 8, IGST Act, 2017
Section 8(1), IGST Act, 2017 → where location of supplier and place of supply are in the same State/UT, it is intra-state
Section 2(56), CGST Act, 2017 defining “India” as territory under Article 1 of the Constitution
Section 2(103), J&K GST Act, 2017 defining “State” (then J&K)

Important observation recorded:
The petitioners’ senior counsel conceded fairly that Cross-LoC trade is intra-state and not import/export.

B. SCN Properly Invoked Under Section 74 (Prima Facie)

The Court compared Section 73 vs Section 74:

Section 73, CGST Act: tax short paid etc. for reasons other than fraud / wilful misstatement / suppression (3-year time limit).
Section 74, CGST Act: tax short paid etc. by reason of fraud / wilful misstatement / suppression to evade tax (5-year time limit).

After examining the SCN extracts, the Court held it prima facie alleges “suppression” and deliberate non-disclosure/non-cooperation, and therefore falls within Section 74(1).

The Court noted it was using “prima facie” and left final determination to the proper officer during adjudication.

C. Limitation: SCNs Held Within Time

The Court applied:

Section 74(2) (notice at least 6 months prior to the deadline in 74(10))
Section 74(10) (order within 5 years from due date of annual return for relevant FY)

The Court accepted the Department’s position that SCNs were issued within the prescribed time, considering the extended due dates for annual returns (as argued by the respondents relying on Govt notifications). Hence, SCNs were not time-barred.

D. Bunching of Two Financial Years in One SCN: Permissible

The Court held there is no absolute prohibition in the CGST/J&K GST Acts against a composite SCN covering multiple FYs, provided:

period is specified,
limitation is complied with,
allegations are clear and specific, and
there is year-wise quantification of tax/interest/penalty.

It clarified bunching becomes problematic mainly when the SCN is vague, lacks year-wise breakup, causes prejudice, or includes time-barred periods.

E. Writ Petitions Not Entertained Due to Alternate Remedy

Since the SCNs were not found “without jurisdiction” on a prima facie basis, the Court held petitioners should follow the statutory process.

Remedy emphasised:

Reply to SCN → adjudication
If adverse order under Section 74(9) → appeal under Section 107, CGST Act

Case law relied upon (alternate remedy principles):

Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998 (8) SCC 1)
Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 2021 SC 2114)

The Court reiterated that alternate remedy is not an absolute bar, but writ jurisdiction is usually not exercised when an efficacious remedy exists—unless classic exceptions apply (fundamental rights, natural justice breach, lack of jurisdiction, challenge to vires, etc.).

F. Barter / Double Taxation Issue

Question No. 5 (whether barter causes double taxation on outward and inward supplies) was left open to be determined by GST authorities.

6. Final Outcome & Directions

All petitions dismissed (either as premature SCN challenges or due to availability of alternate statutory remedy).
Directions issued:
1. Where reply to SCN not filed: petitioners to reply within 4 weeks; proper officer to complete proceedings within 3 months thereafter.
2. Where final order already passed: petitioners granted 3 months to file appeal under Section 107.
Court clarified its observations on merits are not final findings and authorities shall decide independently; however, legal questions determined are binding.

Key Takeaways for Website Readers

Cross-LoC trade with PoK is treated as intra-state supply under GST (not export/import).
SCN alleging non-disclosure of such taxable supplies can validly be issued under Section 74(1) (suppression) prima facie.
Composite SCNs for multiple FYs are not automatically invalid if they contain year-wise quantification and are within limitation.
Courts may refuse to quash SCNs at threshold and insist on reply + Section 107 appeal route, relying on Whirlpool and Radha Krishan Industries principles.

png-12 Download

Restoration of GST Registration Allowed Subject to Filing of Returns and Payment of Dues

G.N.T. Constructions Company vs. Union Territory of J&K & Others

Jammu & Kashmir High Court | Order dated 10 November 2025

1. Case Details

Petitioner: G.N.T. Constructions Company
Respondents: Union Territory of J&K & Others
Court: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Date: 10 November 2025
Writ Petition: WP(C) 2765/2025 with CM No. 7329/2025
Relevant Provisions:
- Section 107(1), CGST Act, 2017 (Appeal)
- Provisions relating to cancellation and restoration of GST registration

2. Factual Background

A show cause notice dated 7 August 2024 was issued by the STO, Circle Kupwara, proposing cancellation of GST registration.
The petitioner did not submit a reply to the said notice.
Consequently, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled on 21 August 2024.
The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 4 November 2025 solely on the ground of limitation.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking restoration of GST registration.

3. Issue Before the Court

Whether, despite dismissal of the statutory appeal on limitation, the GST registration can be restored by the High Court subject to filing of pending returns and payment of tax, penalty, and interest, in line with earlier similar orders.

4. Submissions and Judicial Precedent

The petitioner relied upon earlier orders of the same Court, where GST registrations were restored subject to compliance with statutory obligations.
Reference was made to:
- WP(C) No. 873/2024 (Order dated 29 April 2024)
- WP(C) No. 182/2024 (Order dated 1 April 2024)
In those cases, the Court had permitted restoration of registration on the concession of the Department, provided the taxpayer:
- files pending returns, and
- deposits tax, penalty, and interest as per law.

5. Findings of the Court

The Court observed that:
- The facts of the present case are identical to earlier cases already decided.
- In similar circumstances, restoration of registration was permitted to enable the taxpayer to regularise compliance.
The Court accepted the approach followed in earlier cases and chose to dispose of the writ petition on the same lines.
The Court consciously did not adjudicate on the legal objections raised by the Government Advocate, as the matter was being resolved on factual parity and equitable considerations.

6. Final Directions of the Court

The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:

The petitioner shall approach the Competent Authority for restoration of GST registration within seven (7) days from the date of the order.
The Competent Authority shall immediately restore the GST registration, subject to completion of all requisite formalities.
The petitioner shall:
- file all pending GST returns, and
- deposit the tax, penalty, and interest payable under the GST law
  within seven (7) days.
If the petitioner fails to comply within the stipulated period, the benefit of the order shall automatically lapse, and the order shall cease to operate.

7. Legal Significance of the Judgment

Reinforces the restorative and compliance-oriented approach of High Courts in GST matters.
Clarifies that procedural defaults leading to cancellation can be cured where:
- the taxpayer undertakes to regularise compliance, and
- government revenue is safeguarded.
Demonstrates judicial willingness to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to prevent disproportionate hardship, even where statutory appeal fails on limitation.
Emphasises that restoration is conditional, not automatic, and strictly subject to timely compliance.

✅ Key Takeaway

GST registration cancelled for non-compliance can be restored by the High Court, even after dismissal of appeal on limitation, provided the taxpayer promptly files pending returns and pays all dues, including tax, interest, and penalty.

png-11 Download