Case Law Details
Subhankar Golder Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Calcutta High Court)
In the case of Subhankar Golder vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, heard in the Calcutta High Court, the appellant challenged the cancellation of their GST registration under the provisions of the CGST & WBGST Act, 2017. The cancellation was based on the appellant’s failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. Initially, the appeal filed before the statutory appellate authority was dismissed on the grounds of being belatedly filed, beyond the condonable period.
The appellant, represented by counsel, appealed this decision to the High Court. After hearing arguments from both parties, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant the appellant another opportunity to rectify the situation. The Court considered the appellant’s individual status as a small retailer of imitation jewelry in its decision. Recognizing the appellant’s circumstances, the Court decided to allow them the chance to address the default.
As a result, the Court allowed the appeal, the connected application, and the writ petition. The order cancelling the registration was set aside, contingent upon certain conditions. The appellant was required to file returns for the entire period of default, pay the requisite amount of tax, interest, fines, and penalties. If the appellant complied with these directions within three weeks from the receipt of the server copy of the order, their registration under the Act would be restored by the Jurisdictional Officer.
However, failure to comply with the directions would result in the dismissal of the writ petition and the appellant losing the benefits of the Court’s order. To facilitate compliance, the respondents were directed to open the portal for filing returns and remitting taxes, interest, penalties, and fines by the appellant.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. This intra-Court appeal filed by the writ petitioner is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to grant any interim order in the writ petition while directing the respondents to file the affidavit-in-opposition. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the appeal and the writ petition are disposed of by this common order.
2. The appellant had challenged the order of cancellation of the registration under the provisions of the CGST & WBGST Act, 2017. The registration was cancelled on the ground that the appellant failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. The appeal filed before the statutory appellate authority was dismissed by order dated 04.01.2024 on the ground that it is filed belatedly beyond the condonable period.
3. After elaborately hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, we are of the view that the appellant can be provided with one more opportunity to remedy the bridge as the appellant being an individual since a small retailer of imitation jewellry, we deem it appropriate that the appellant should be permitted to remedy the bridge.
4. Accordingly, the appeal, the connected application and the writ petition all are allowed and the order of cancellation of registration is set aside subject to the condition that the appellant files returns for the entire period of default, pays requisite amount of tax and interest and fine and penalty. If the appellant complies with the directions passed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order, the appellant’s registration under the Act shall be restored by the Jurisdictional Officer. However, if the appellant fails to comply with the directions, the benefit of this order would not ensure to the appellant and the writ petition would stand automatically dismissed.
5. For the purpose of the compliance of the above directions, the respondents are directed to open the portal so that the returns can be filed and the tax, interest, penalty and fine can be remitted by the appellant.
Author Bio
