Allowed

Gora Chand Paul v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Range-I, Tollygunge Division and Ors.

Calcutta HC10 Feb 2025WPA/30373/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted relief in a writ petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns for six months. The court ordered the cancellation be set aside, directed the authorities to activate the portal, and set conditions for restoring the registration within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order of cancellation of GST registration; direct respondents to activate portal; permit petitioner to file returns and restore registration within four weeks.

Gora Chand Paul Vs Superintendent of Central Tax… — GST and Indirect Tax | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

20 jks 10.02.2025

¶2

WPA 30373 of 2024

¶3

Gora Chand Paul

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Superintendent of Central Tax & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Debanuj Basu Thakur

¶7

… … for the petitioner

¶8

Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya Mr. Tapan Bhanja Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee

¶9

… … for the CGST Authorities

¶10

The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner dated 20^th of February, 2023 passed under the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Hereinafter referred to as the "Said Act").

¶11

It is the petitioner's case that on 15^th January, 2023, the petitioner was served with a show cause as to why the registration of the petitioner under the said Act shall not be cancelled for the petitioner having failed to file his returns for a continuous period of six months.

¶12

Mr. Basu Thakur, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was and is all along interested to comply with the provisions of the said Act, unfortunately the aforesaid fact could not be appropriately brought to the notice of respondents.

¶13

By placing reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Subhankar Golder Versus Assistant Commissioner of

¶14

¶15

State Tax, Serampore Charge (MAT 639 of 2024) on 9th April, 2024, it is submitted that in similar circumstances, similar order of cancellation of registration had been set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner files returns for the entire period of default, pays requisite amount of tax, interest, fine and penalty. He submits that this Court may be pleased to set aside the order of cancellation and allow the petitioner to file his returns on the same terms.

¶16

Mr. Uday Shankar Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submits that in the instant case although a show cause notice was issued, since the petitioner did not file any proper reply, the registration was cancelled. The petitioner did not file any revocation application but preferred an appeal but the same was rejected. According to the respondent authorities, there is no irregularity on the part of the respondent authorities in cancelling the registration.

¶17

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

¶18

Admittedly, I find that the registration of the petitioner had been cancelled on the ground of nonfiling of returns. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had been adopting dubious process to evade tax. Taking note of the fact that the suspension/revocation of licence would be

¶19

¶20

counterproductive and work against the interest of the revenue, since the petitioner in such a case would not be able to carry on his business in the sense that no invoice can be raised by the petitioner and ultimately would impact recovery of tax, therefore, I am of the view that the respondents should take a pragmatic view in the matter and permit the petitioner to carry on his business.

¶21

I find from the submissions made by the respondents that unless, the petitioner files his returns, the respondents cannot determine the final liability.

¶22

Having regard to the aforesaid and taking note of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhankar Golder (supra), I propose to set aside the order dated 20^th February, 2023 cancelling the registration of the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner files his returns for the entire period of default and pays requisite amount of tax, interest, fine and penalty.

¶23

It is made clear that if the petitioner complies with the directions/conditions noted above, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order, the petitioner's registration under the said Act shall be restored by the Jurisdictional Officer. However, if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions as aforesaid, the benefit of this order will not enure to the

¶24

¶25

petitioner and the writ petition would stand automatically dismissed.

¶26

For the purpose of compliance of the above directions, the respondents are directed to activate the portal within one week from date, so that the petitioner can file his returns, pays requisite amount of tax, interest, fine and penalty.

¶27

With the above direction and observations, the writ petition being WPA 30373 of 2024 is disposed of.

¶28

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶30

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)

Gora Chand Paul v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Range-I, Tollygunge Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gora Chand Paul v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Range-I, Tollygunge Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binoy Kolay Vs Senior Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Bally Circle and Ors.

Wporldwide Safety Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs Air Port Custom House Kolkata Nad Ors.

Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Madhusudan Banik Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

M/S. Tkm Global Logistics Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Tkm Global Logistics Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.