Sayed Ali vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sayed Ali, challenged an order dated May 28, 2025, passed by the CGST authorities, which cancelled his registration under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The cancellation was primarily due to the non-filing of returns. The petitioner was unable to conduct business due to the absence of registration. The respondents did not allege any tax evasion by the petitioner. The Court noted that revoking registration could be counterproductive to revenue collection as it prevents the petitioner from raising invoices and impacting tax recovery.
Held
The Court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration was unsustainable. It reasoned that revoking registration for non-filing of returns, without any allegation of tax evasion, is counterproductive to the interests of the revenue. The inability of the petitioner to conduct business and raise invoices would negatively impact tax recovery. Following the direction issued by the Division Bench in Subhankar Golder v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Serampore Charge & Ors. (MAT 639 of 2024), the Court proposed to set aside the cancellation order. The registration would be restored subject to the petitioner filing all pending returns and paying the requisite tax, interest, fine, and penalty within four weeks. The respondents were directed to activate the portal for the petitioner to comply. If the petitioner fails to comply, the writ petition would stand dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration on the ground of non-filing of returns, without alleging tax evasion, is sustainable in law, particularly in light of the potential negative impact on revenue collection? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the cancellation of registration, while not alleging tax evasion, would hinder business operations and ultimately impact revenue. Relied on the principle of pragmatic approach for revenue interest. Revenue/State: Did not file an affidavit-in-opposition, and therefore, the allegations in the writ petition were deemed not admitted. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue.
Sections Cited
WBGST/CGST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
8 28.04.2026 sb Ct 3
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICION APPELLATE SIDE Sayed Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray
Mr.Subhasis Podder
Ms. Shiwani Shaw
… For the petitioner.
Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya
Ms. Aishwarya Rajyasree
Ms. Banani Bhattacharya
…. For the CGST authorities.
The matter pertains to, in effect, challenge to an order of cancellation of registration under the provisions of WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) dated 28th May, 2025. 2. Noting in absence of the petitioner’s registration, the petitioner is unable to carry on any business, this Court proposes to take up the hearing of this matter.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Admittedly, I find that the petitioner’s registration under the said Act had been cancelled on the ground of non-filing of returns. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had been adapting dubious process to evade tax.
Taking note of the fact that the suspension/revocation of license would be counterproductive and works against the interest of the revenue since, the petitioner in such a case would not able to carry on his business in the sense that no invoice can be raised by the petitioner 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 petitioner to carry on his business.
Accordingly, having regard to the direction issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhankar Golder v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Serampore Charge & Ors. (MAT 639 of 2024) on 9th April, 2024, I propose to set aside the order dated 28th May, 2025, cancelling the registration of the petitioner under the said Act, subject to the condition that the petitioner files its returns for the entire period of default and pays requisite amount of tax, interest, fine and penalty, if not already paid.
It is made clear that if the petitioner complies with the directions/conditions noted above, within 4 weeks from the 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 under the said Act. However, if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions as aforesaid, the benefit of this order will not enure to the petitioner and the writ petition would stand automatically dismissed.
For the purpose of compliance of the above directions, the respondents are directed to activate the portal within one week from the date of communication of this order, so that the petitioner can file its returns, pays requisite amount of tax, interest, fine and penalty if not already paid.
Since, no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the 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.