Kanksa Farmer Producer Company Limited vs. Senior Joint Commissioner Of Revenue And Appellate Authority, Durgapur Circle And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Kanksa Farmer Producer Company Limited, challenges the cancellation of its GST registration. The petitioner, a company supporting marginal farmers, claims genuine difficulties in filing monthly returns due to the peak agricultural season and unavailability of its GST practitioner. It argues that since its business deals with exempted goods, non-filing of returns did not cause revenue loss to the State, characterizing the default as technical and procedural. The petitioner also contends that the order of cancellation was perverse and non-speaking, as its detailed representation was not fully considered. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all due taxes, interest, and penalties and file returns regularly. The respondents opposed the petition, citing the petitioner's failure to file returns for a continuous period, violating Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Held
The Court found that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for interference. It reasoned that a complete denial of the opportunity to file returns after payment would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner's business and livelihood. To balance equities and for the ends of justice, the Court directed the concerned authority to compute any due taxes and penalties. Upon satisfaction of these dues, the GST registration shall be restored from its original date, and the petitioner will be permitted to file returns on a regular basis. The Court also directed that the portal shall remain active for making payments of taxes and penalties. The allegations in the writ petition were deemed not admitted by the respondents as affidavits were not called for. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration for non-filing of returns, despite alleged genuine difficulties and no revenue loss to the State, is justified under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the non-filing of returns was due to genuine difficulties arising from the agricultural season and the unavailability of its GST practitioner. It argues that the default was technical and procedural, not substantive, as no revenue loss was incurred by the State due to dealing in exempted goods. The petitioner further asserts that the cancellation order was perverse and non-speaking, failing to consider its detailed representation. The petitioner is ready to pay all dues and file returns regularly. Revenue/State's arguments: The State vehemently opposes the petition, arguing that the undue delay in filing monthly returns cannot be condoned and is impermissible in law. It relies on Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates cancellation of registration for failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months, a provision the petitioner has violated.
Sections Cited
Section 29(2)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026 ct no. 10 Sl.22 AGM
WPA 6893 of 2026
Kanksa Farmer Producer Company Limited -Versus- Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue & Appellate Authority & Ors.
Mr. Rites Goel. Mr. Santanu Chakraborty. …for the petitioner.
Mrs. Manju Agarwal. Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee. Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal.
… for the State.
The petitioner in the instant case challenges inter alia, the cancellation/suspension of GST registration for non-filing of monthly returns and seeks restoration of registration to continue business.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioner being a farmer producer company incorporated to support marginal farmers and market their agricultural produce(particularly paddy) faced genuine difficulties due to peak agricultural season and unavailability of its appointed GST practitioner.
It is further submitted that since the petitioner is involved in a business dealing with exempted goods, non filing of returns has not resulted in any loss of revenue to the State exchequer. The default is technical and procedural, not substantive.
2
The order passed by the authority concerned is perverse and non speaking order since the comprehensive and detailed representation dated 20.1.2026 has not been fully considered for adjudication. The authority failed to apply its mind to relevant facts and circumstances.
The petitioner is ready and willing to pay all due taxes, interest, penalty or may be determined by the prayer officer and to file returns on a regular basis.
Learned appearing for the Additional Government Pleader vehemently opposes the same and submits that the undue delay caused in not filing the monthly returns cannot be condoned and is not permissible in the eye of law.
It is contended that Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 mandates cancellation of registration where a registered person fails to furnish return for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner has violated his statutory provision.
Having heard the parties and upon perusing the records, I find that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for interference as complete denial of opportunity to file returns after payment would cause irreparable loss to business and livelihood.
To balance the equities and for the ends of justice, I direct the authority concerned to compute the due taxes and penalties if payable, and upon being satisfied the registration shall be restored from the date of registration and the petitioner be permitted to file the returns on regular basis.
It is made clear that for making the payment of taxes, penalties, the portal shall remain active.
Since the affidavits were not called for, the allegations contained in the writ petition are
3 deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Smita Das De, 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.