Case Law Details
Prasanta Das Vs Superintendent, Range-V CGST & CX (Calcutta High Court)
Introduction: On May 8, 2024, the Calcutta High Court delivered a significant judgment in the case of Prasanta Das Vs. Superintendent, Range-V CGST & CX. The case revolved around the cancellation of GST registration of Prasanta Das, a small businessman and works contractor, due to non-filing of returns during the Covid-19 period. This judgment highlights critical procedural issues and emphasizes the rights of taxpayers under the Central and West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Background and Facts of the Case: Prasanta Das, a registered taxpayer under the GST Act, faced challenges due to the cancellation of his GST registration on March 27, 2023. The cancellation was based on his failure to file returns for six consecutive months, which he attributed to difficulties encountered during the Covid-19 pandemic. Following the issuance of a show cause notice on January 14, 2023, Das promptly filed the pending returns on March 16, 2023. Despite this, his registration was canceled, prompting him to seek legal redress.
Petitioner’s Arguments: Represented by Ms. Roychoudhury, Prasanta Das argued that under Rule 22 of the GST Rules, once a taxpayer files all pending returns and pays the due taxes along with interest and late fees, the proceedings for cancellation should be dropped. She emphasized that Das had complied with these requirements before the cancellation order was issued. Despite this compliance, the authorities proceeded with the cancellation, ignoring the filed returns. Das also applied for revocation of the cancellation, which was rejected due to a perceived failure to respond to a further show cause notice.
Respondents’ Counterarguments: Mr. Bhattacharya, representing the CGST authorities, contended that Das had repeatedly failed to comply with GST provisions despite several opportunities. He pointed out that Das did not appear before the authorities and failed to seek condonation of delay when filing a belated appeal. Bhattacharya argued that the petitioner’s conduct did not demonstrate a genuine intention to comply with the law, warranting the cancellation of his registration.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
