Heard Mr. A Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents in the GST Department of the Government of Assam.

2. The petitioner Mayflower Hotels and Resorts LLP is an assessee under the GST laws bearing GST Registration No. GSTIN/UIN: 18AARFM1714E1ZB. The petitioner failed to submit the returns for the year 2018 up-to the year 2021. As a result by the order dated 07.12.2021 under reference no. ZA1812210060184 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Guwahati, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 107 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short, the AGST Act, 2017) seeking interference with the order of cancellation dated 07.12.2021.

3. By the order impugned, the appeal of the petitioner under Section 107 of the AGST Act, 2017 was rejected by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), Guwahati by the order dated 09.09.2022 on the ground that the appeal under Section 107 is to be made within a period of three months from the date of the order impugned but the appeal was made with a delay of more than 9 (nine) months. By taking recourse of the provisions of Section 107(1) which provides that such appeals are to be made within a period of three months from the date of the decision impugned, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected.

Although Section 107(4) provides for the appeal to be entertained if the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within time, but the order impugned dated 09.09.2022 does not reflect that any such sufficient cause was shown by the appellant to require the appellate authority to entertain the appeal beyond the prescribed period of three months.

4. In any view of the matter, it is an admitted position of the petitioner assessee that they have failed to file the returns from the year 2018 up-to the year 2021 meaning thereby that the required amount of GST was also not paid for the aforesaid period. We also take note of the provisions of Section 29 of the AGST Act, 2017 which provides that if an assessee fails to furnish returns for three consecutive tax periods, it may be a good reason for cancellation of the registration of the assessee concerned. From such point of view, if the petitioner had not submitted the returns for three consecutive tax periods, the act on the part of the departmental authorities in cancelling the registration cannot prima facie be faulted with.

5. However, we take note of the provisions of Section 30 of the AGST Act, 2017 which provides for a revocation of cancellation of the registration. The petitioner assessee makes a statement before the Court that the assessee is willing to file the returns for all the years for which they have not filed and also pay the necessary GST dues to the Department including any interest or penalty that may be leviable on them.

6. If it is the stand of the petitioner assessee that they are willing to file the returns as well as pay all the required dues including the interests and the penalties, we are of the view that it would be an appropriate case for the respondent authorities to consider any such proposal that may be made by the petitioner and also to give a reasoned consideration on their claim for revocation of the cancellation of the registration.

7. Mr. A Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner points out to a provision of Section 30 that the revocation application is to be made within a period of thirty days from the date of service of cancellation of the order and admittedly in the instant case, the period of thirty days is over. But at the same time, we take note that in the circumstance where the petitioner assessee is willing to file the returns and also pay all the tax dues including the interests and penalties etc. that may be leviable, the petitioner may have invoked a wrong provisions of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the AGST Act, 2017. As the petitioner had acted diligently in seeking to avail the remedy under the law which although it may not have been the appropriate remedy under the circumstance, we are of the view that it would be a good cause for the respondents to consider as to whether the delay in making such application can be suitable condoned.

8. The respondents to also keep in mind that it is in the public interest to have the benefits of all the taxes being paid by the tax payers rather than preventing a tax payer from further continuing their business for non-payment of taxes, which may in other words, adversely affect the tax revenue of the state. The application be submitted by the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from today and upon such application being received, the authorities may give a due consideration within a period of another two months from the date of filing of the application. In doing so, the petitioner may also be given a hearing and the petitioner is also expected to cooperate with the Department so that the dispute can be brought to its logical end.

Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.