Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
18.05.2026
Item No.38
Ct. No. 10
BR
WPA 4699 of 2026
Barun Kumar Biswas
-vs-
Union of India and anr.
Ms. Micky Chowdhury,
Mr. B. N. Pal
…… for the petitioner
Mr. Anjan Chakraborty,
Ms. Avantika Chakraborty
… for the respondent no. 1
Mr. K. K. Maity,
Mr. Kaushik Dey
… for the CGST Authority
1. The
petitioner
in
the
instant
case
challenges , inter alia, the legality and
validity of the order dated 3.12.2025
passed by the respondent no.2
2. The main grievance of the petitioner is
with regard to the denial of eligible Input
Tax Credit on valid invoices issued by the
supplier
M/s.
Adrian
Infra
Services
Private Ltd. during the period from April
2021 to June 2021 as per Section 16 read
with Section 31 of Central Goods Services
Tax 2017 and Rule 36 of Central Goods
Service Tax Rules, 2017.
3. The
petitioner
submits
that
the
respondent authorities have cancelled
the supplier’s registration retrospectively
from 28.11.2019 thereby, invaliding the
invoices issued during the period from
April 2021 to July 2021 as per Section 16
2
read with Section 31 and Rule 36 and
instruction No. 02/2022-GST dated
22.03.2022 (para 7 of Annexure B).
4. It is further submitted by the petitioner
that the adjudicating authority has held
that the petitioner has availed Input Tax
Credit
irregularly
amounting
to
Rs.
1,24,16,354 (CGST Rs. 62,08,177) and
SGST-Rs. 62,08, 177/- ) under Section 73
(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with the
corresponding provisions of the WBGST
Act, 2017.
5. Thereafter on 10th September, 2025 a
show cause notice has been issued under
Section 73 of the Central Goods and
Services Act, 2017, (hereinafter referred to
as the said Act) for the financial year
2021-2022 by the respondent authority.
The petitioner duly submitted its reply to
the said show cause notice and contended
that it had availed input tax credit (ITC)
upon compliance with all the conditions
stipulated under Section 16(2) of the said
Act.
6. Thereafter the petitioner has challenged
the
retrospective
cancellation
of
the
supplier registration with effect from
28.11.2019
and
the
consequential
3
invalidation of all the invoices issued
during the period from April 2021 to July
2021 as being arbitrary, illegal and
contrary to the provisions of the Section
16(2) of the said Act and Rules and
instruction
No.
2/2022-GST
dated
22.03.2022 issued by the Central Board
of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondent
authorities
vehemently
opposes the same and draws the
attention of this Court to paragraph 13
and 14 of the writ petition to demonstrate
that the petitioner has illegally availed
the ITC, on all invoices issued by the
supplier whose registration has already
been cancelled suo motu with effect from
28.11.2019.
8. In this context, the petitioner submits by
relying upon the paragraph 18 of the writ
petition, that the registration has been
cancelled by the respondent authorities
retrospectively
with
effect
from
28.11.2019
and
such
retrospective
cancellation cannot in-validate invoices
issued during the period when the
supplier was registered and active on the
GST portal.
4
9. The petitioner places reliance upon a
judgement of a Coordinate Bench of this
Court
with
regard
to
the
issue
of
remaining cases to respondent authorities
for considering afresh the issue of the
entitlement to the benefit of input tax
credit in question, by considering the
documents which the petitioner intends to
rely upon in support of the claim of
genuineness of the transactions and the
respondents has been directed to consider
whether the payment on purchases in
question along with GST were actually
paid to the supplier and also to consider
whether the purchases were made before
or after the cancellation of the registration
of the suppliers in compliance of the
statutory obligation regarding verification
of the identity of the suppliers. A further
reliance has also been placed upon a
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this
Court wherein it has been observed in the
case of Shyamal Mal Paul Vs Asstt.
Commissioner reported in (2025) 180
Taxmann.com 415 (Calcutta) which is
reproduced below:
“22.Accordingly,
the
order of the appellate authority dated May 16, 2025 insofar as it relates to discrepancy under serial no. 3 is concerned , is set aside.
5
24.The appellate authority is directed to pass a reasoned order as the discrepancy no. 3 only is concerned after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to his authorized representative and to communicate the same immediately thereafter.”
10.The petitioner further relies upon another Division Bench’s judgement of which is reproduced below:
“16. However, this appears to be not the allegation in the pre-show cause notice as the only allegation was that the three suppliers registration has been cancelled.
22.The exercise appears to be have not been done by the adjudicating authority and , therefore, we are of the view
that the matter has to be readjudicated by taking note of all the factual issues bearing in mind the legal principles laid down in various decisions. Though the reply to the pre-show cause notice dated 6.10.2023 gives the necessary details and the documents which have been annexed , we are of the view that the appellants should submit a fresh reply dealing with all issues with liberty to place the decisions of the various courts on which they seek to place reliance.”
11.After hearing the rival contention of the parties and upon perusal of the available records I find that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie
6 case. Interference is warranted at this stage.
12.I direct the respondent to revisit the issue and consider the same in light of the two Division Bench’s judgements within a period of 8 weeks by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. Such decision shall be communicated within a week thereafter.
13.With the above observation and directions, the Writ Petition is allowed ad disposed of, by quashing and setting aside the Order dated 03.12.2025. 14. Since the affidavit has not been called for, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied and not admitted.
(Smita Das De, J.)
