Ganit Shipping (Opc) Private Limited And Anr vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Ganit Shipping (OPC) Private Limited & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 6, 2025, which cancelled their GST registration. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-furnishing of returns, as per Section 39 of the WB GST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners expressed their willingness to continue their business and comply with the provisions of the Act, including paying any outstanding tax, interest, penalty, and fine. The respondents are the State of West Bengal and other authorities.
Held
The Court held that the cancellation of the petitioners' GST registration, based on non-furnishing of returns under Section 39 of the WB GST/CGST Act, 2017, should be set aside. The Court noted that the respondents did not allege any dubious tax evasion practices by the petitioners. The Court reasoned that suspending or revoking registration would be counterproductive to the revenue's interest, as it would impede the petitioners' ability to conduct business, raise invoices, and consequently impact tax recovery. Therefore, a pragmatic view was deemed necessary. The Court directed the petitioners to file all pending returns and pay the applicable tax, interest, penalty, and fine within four weeks of receiving the order. Upon compliance, the Jurisdictional Officer is to restore the registration. The Court also directed the respondents to activate the petitioners' portal and login credentials within one week to facilitate compliance. If the petitioners fail to comply, the writ petition would stand dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-furnishing of returns, under Section 39 of the WB GST/CGST Act, 2017, is justified when the petitioner is willing to regularize their compliance and continue business operations. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that they are keen to continue their business and are prepared to fulfill all statutory obligations, including payment of dues. They submitted that the cancellation of registration would be counterproductive and detrimental to revenue recovery as it would prevent them from raising invoices and conducting business. They sought a pragmatic approach from the authorities. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state authorities. However, it notes that the cancellation was issued pursuant to a show cause notice for non-furnishing of returns.
Sections Cited
Section 39
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
8 08.07.2026 sb
Ct.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE Ganit Shipping (OPC) Private Limited & Anr. Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray
Ms. Shiwani Shaw
Mr. Subhasis Podder
Mr. Animitra Roy
Mr. Rantu Bose
… For the petitioners
Mr. Suryaneel Das, AGP
Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee
Ms. Manasi Mukherjee
… For the State.
Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.
Challenging the order of cancellation dated 6th March, 2025 passed under the provisions of WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the instant writ petition has been filed.
Today, Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition would submit that the petitioners are interested to continue with the business and is agreeable to comply with the provisions of the said Act and to pay the outstanding tax, interest, penalty and fine as may be applicable.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it would transpire that pursuant to a show cause notice, the aforesaid order of cancellation of registration was issued on the ground of non-furnishing of returns under Section 39 of the said Act.
I find in this case that the registration of the petitioners had been cancelled on the ground of non-filing of returns. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners had been adopting dubious process to evade tax. Taking note of the fact that the suspension/revocation of registration would be counterproductive and works against the interest of the revenue since, the petitioners in such case would not be able to carry on his business in the sense that no invoice can be raised by the petitioners 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 petitioners to carry on their business.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I propose to set aside the order of cancellation dated 6th March, 2025, subject to the condition that the petitioner filed his returns for the entire period of default and pays requisite amount of tax, interest, penalty and fine as may be applicable.
It is made clear that if the petitioner complies with the directions/conditions noted above within four weeks from date of receipt of the server copy of this order, the petitioner’s registration under the said Act shall be restored by the Juri ictional Officer. However, if the petitioners fail to comply with the directions as aforesaid, the benefit of this order will not enure to the petitioners and the writ petition would stand automatically dismissed.
For the purpose of compliance of the above directions, the respondents are directed to activate the petitioners’ portal and login credentials within one week from date so that the petitioners can files their returns, pays requisite amount of tax, interest, fine and penalty.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Hon’ble Court.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.