Judgment
Ct.No.654 D/L 21.08.2026 4
Saikat Mukherjee WPA/11394/2025
PARTHA BISWAS VS.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BUDGE BUDGE, BEHALA, KOLKATA SOUTH CGST AND CX COMMISSIONERATE
Mr. Vinay Shraff, Adv.
Mr. Dev Agarwal, Adv.
…For the Petitioner
Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Adv.
…For the CGST Authority
1. The instant writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by an order of cancellation of registration dated 10th August, 2023, which was granted to the writ petitioner under section 22 of the GST Act. It is the specific case of writ petitioner that the respondent authorities visited his premises at 37/C/3, Ground Floor, Parui Paka Jayhind Pally, Sarsuna, South 24 Pargans, Kolkata-700061 and a show-cause was served on the petitioner asking him to appear personally on 11th May, 2023 and to explain as to why his registration shall not be cancelled for the reasons ‘Taxpayer found Non-Functioning/Not Existing at the principal place of business’.
2. However, petitioner chose not to reply to the said show- cause dated 10th August, 2023. The said registration of the petitioner was cancelled and the same was communicated to petitioner on 8th September, 2023. The petitioner wrote a letter to the Jurisdictional Officer,
2 Kolkata South Division, Range-I of GST requesting for revoking of cancellation of said registration. In the said letter the petitioner did not raise any legal issue as to why and how the physical inspection undertaken by the respondent authorities is not in accordance with law.
3. Upon receipt of the letter dated 8th September, 2023, a further opportunity of hearing was given by the respondent authorities on 10th October, 2023 and the same was communicated to the petitioner. By the said letter the petitioner was directed to appear before the authority concerned with the books of accounts and updated bank statement of his business by 17th October, 2023. Again the petitioner did not comply with the said notice dated 10th October, 2023.
4. Finally, an order was passed on 3rd November, 2023, rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation of registration by the respondent authorities. The petitioner is, however, aggrieved by the fact that his GST registration has been cancelled by the respondent authority retrospectively since inception of the business. According to the petitioner, such retrospective operation of the cancellation order cannot be passed. The petitioner also submits that the inspection conducted by the respondent authorities was not in accordance with Rule 25 of the then CGST Rules as applicable.
5. This Court has elaborately heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and considered the material facts pleaded in the writ petition. This Court finds that such legal issue has not been raised by the petitioner
3 before the respondent authority at the time of submitting of letter requesting revocation of cancellation of registration. However, for ends of justice and considering the retrospective operation of the order of cancellation, the authority concerned is directed to give an opportunity of fresh hearing to the petitioner on the request for revocation of cancellation of registration dated 8th September, 2023.
6. The petitioner shall be at liberty to canvass all grounds, including legal grounds, before the concerned authority and the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is disposed of.
8. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(ARYAK DUTT, J.)