Marjina Khatun C/o Anarul Islam Sarkar Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court considered a writ petition challenging an order dated 31 July 2024 by the adjudicating authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration on the ground of failure to file returns for a specified period. The petitioner submitted that although an appellate remedy existed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the statutory period of three months and the additional grace period of thirty days prescribed under Section 107(4) had already expired. The petitioner therefore sought judicial intervention to set aside the cancellation order and permit filing of the pending returns within a time frame fixed by the Court.
It was argued that cancellation of GST registration effectively removes the petitioner from the GST framework, which would not be beneficial to the revenue authorities from the perspective of tax collection. Reliance was placed on the judgments in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Centre v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST), Salem and Erode and Another and Subhankar Golder v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Serampore Charge & Others.
The CGST authorities defended the adjudicating authority’s decision. The Court examined the nature of the cancellation order and observed that revival of the registration would not prejudice the revenue authorities. Referring to the decisions in Subhankar Golder and Suguna Cutpiece Centre, the Court held that the petitioner should be granted one more opportunity to regularise compliance by filing the pending returns.
