The Court noted that Form REG-01 requires proof of only the principal place of business, not the additional place, making the cancellation contrary to the statutory framework.
The Gauhati High Court has quashed the cancellation of GST registration of a trader whose registration was cancelled solely on the ground that he failed to submit a rent agreement for his additional place of business. [Mohammed Luthfur Rahman v. Union of India & Ors.]
Justice Devashis Baruah observed that Form REG-01, which prescribes the list of documents to be uploaded at the time of registration, requires proof only for the principal place of business under Serial No. 3. There is no corresponding requirement for proof of the additional place of business.
The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Euro Fashion in Guwahati, had a principal and an additional place of business. A landlord-tenant dispute regarding the additional premises was pending in a civil suit, with an injunction maintaining status quo. The petitioner had also been depositing rent under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act, 1972.
Despite the petitioner's detailed reply explaining the pending litigation and furnishing the rent agreement for the principal place, the authorities cancelled the registration on 14.07.2026 for non-submission of the rent agreement for the additional premises.
The Court directed restoration of the GST registration with effect from the date of suspension (18.06.2026), quashing both the show cause notice and the speaking order.
2026-juristway.com-3026-HC(Gauhati)-GST | Gauhati High Court | WP(C)/3857/2026 | 12.10.2026
