Ajijul Haque @ Hoque Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
Summary: The Calcutta High Court considered a writ petition challenging cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 14th August, 2025 proposing cancellation of registration. The petitioner submitted that he had always been interested in complying with the statutory provisions by filing returns, but no reply to the show cause notice had been filed. He expressed readiness and willingness to comply with the statutory requirements. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment in the Subhakar Golder versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Serampore Charge (MAT 639 of 2024), decided on 9th April 2024, where a similar cancellation had been set aside subject to filing returns for the entire period of default and payment of the requisite tax, interest, fine and penalty.
The State contended that the petitioner had failed to comply with the statutory provisions and that the registration had consequently been cancelled after an opportunity to show cause was provided. The Court found that the registration had admittedly been cancelled for non-filing of returns and that the respondents did not allege that the petitioner had adopted any dubious process to evade tax. The Court observed that suspension or revocation of the registration would be counterproductive and against the interest of revenue because the petitioner would be unable to carry on business or raise invoices, ultimately affecting recovery of tax. The Court therefore considered it appropriate to take a pragmatic view and set aside the cancellation order dated 4th November, 2025, subject to filing returns for the entire period of default and payment of requisite tax, interest, fine and penalty. The registration was directed to be restored by the Jurisdictional Officer upon compliance within four weeks, failing which the writ petition would stand automatically dismissed.
Cases Discussed
- Subhankar Golder versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Serampore Charge (MAT 639 of 2024), decided on 9th April 2024
Petitioner Was Represented By: Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray, Mr. Subhasis Podder, Mr. Abhilash Mittal
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained with the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017.
3. It is the petitioner’s case that on 14th August, 2025 the petitioner was served with a notice of show cause as to why the registration of the petitioner under the said Act shall not be cancelled for the petitioner having failed to furnish his returns for a continuous period of six months.
4. Mr. Ray, 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 by filing his returns. Unfortunately, such fact could not be brought to the notice of the respondents, as no reply to the show cause was filed. He submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the provisions of the said Act.
5. By placing reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Subhakar Golder versus Assistant Commissioner of 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 and interest and fine and penalty. He submits that this Court may be pleased to set aside the order of cancellation and allow the petitioner file its returns.
6. Mr. Mishra, learned AAAG appearing for the State on the other hand submits that the petitioner had not complied with the statutory provisions and it is for such reason, the registration of the petitioner under the said Act was cancelled.
7. According to the respondent authorities the petitioner was given opportunity to show cause. Since, no reply to the show cause was given by the petitioner, the authorities had cancelled the registration. There is no irregularity on the part of the authorities in cancelling the registration.
8. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.
9. Admittedly, I find that the registration of the petitioner had been cancelled on the ground of non-filing 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 license would be counterproductive and works 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 invoices can be raised by the petitioner and ultimately would impact recovery of tax, I am of the view that the respondents should take a pragmatic view in the matter and permit the petitioner to carry on its business.
10. I find from the submissions made by the respondents that unless, the petitioner files his returns, the respondents cannot determine the final liability.
11. 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 4th November, 2025 cancelling the registration of the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner files its returns for the entire period of default and pays requisite amount of tax and interest and fine and penalty.
12. It is made clear that if the petitioner complies with the directions/conditions noted above, within 4 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 petitioner and the writ petition would stand automatically dismissed.
13. For the purpose of compliance of the above directions, the respondent are directed to activate the petitioner’s portal and login credentials within one week from the date so that the petitioner can file its returns, pays requisite amount of tax and interest and fine and penalty.
14. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs.
15. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
