Bhola Prasad Barui vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Bhola Prasad Barui, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 26, 2025, passed by the proper officer, which cancelled his GST registration. The cancellation was purportedly based on the ground that the registration was obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The petitioner contended that the cancellation order was issued solely based on an inspection where the authorities could not locate him at his place of business, failing to consider that he had relocated. The petitioner argued that the authorities should have visited his new business premises and restored his registration instead of cancelling it. The State authorities argued that the petitioner had an equally efficacious alternative remedy under Section 30 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition did not involve any jurisdictional error and did not fall within any exceptions that would warrant the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the availability of an alternative remedy. Therefore, the Court decided not to entertain the writ petition. However, acknowledging that the petitioner sought revocation of the cancellation within a condonable period, the Court directed that if the petitioner files an application for revocation before the proper officer within one week from the date of the order, the proper officer shall treat the application as filed within time and consider it on its merits. The petitioner will be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Court clarified that this order does not mandate the revocation of the cancellation, and the proper officer is free to make an independent decision strictly in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a GST registration cancellation order when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available under Section 30 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was passed without considering the actual factual position, specifically that the petitioner had relocated his business premises, which led to the authorities being unable to find him during the inspection. The petitioner contended that the authorities should have conducted a fresh visit to the new location and restored the registration rather than cancelling it. State's arguments: The State authorities argued that the writ petition should not be entertained by the High Court because the petitioner has an equally efficacious alternative remedy available before the proper officer under Section 30 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017.
Sections Cited
Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Juri iction Appellate Side
Ct.551 06.01.2026 Item No.25 Sws.M
WPA 27807 of 2025
Bhola Prasad Barui Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Bulbuli Basu …for the petitioner
Mr. Tanmoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal Mr. Debraj Sahu …for the State
This writ petition assails an order for cancellation of the petitioner’s registration dated August 26, 2025 passed by the proper officer apparently on the ground that the petitioner had obtained registration by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed only on the basis of an inspection/physical verification conducted by the GST authorities when they allegedly could not locate the petitioner at the petitioner’s place of business. It is submitted that such order has been passed without taking into consideration the actual factual position. It is further submitted that as the petitioner had relocated its place of business and it could have been for such reason that the respondents/GST authorities failed to find the petitioner at the time of inspection.
2
It is further submitted that the respondents/GST authorities should have conducted a fresh visit at the new place of business of the petitioner and restored the registration of the petitioner instead of cancelling the same.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the respondents/State authorities submits that the petitioner has an equally efficacious alternative remedy before the proper officer itself under Section 30 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 and as such this Court should not entertain the writ petition.
Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record.
The case at hand does not entail any juri ictional error and does not fall within any of the exceptions that could persuade this Court to exercise its writ juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite availability of alternative remedy.
In such view of the matter, since the petitioner has an equally efficacious alternative remedy before the proper officer under Section 30 of the said act of 2017, this writ petition is not entertained.
Since the petitioner has approached this Court seeking revocation of the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration within the condonable period,
therefore if the petitioner files an application for revocation before the proper officer within a week from
3 date, the proper officer concerned shall treat the application for revocation as having been filed within time and consider the same on merits. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall also be afforded an opportunity of being heard by the proper officer while deciding the petitioner’s application for revocation, in accordance with law.
It is made clear that this order shall not be treated as a mandate to revoke the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration and the proper officer shall be free to take independent decision on the petitioner’s application for revocation strictly in accordance with law.
With the above observations, WPA 27807 of 2025 stands disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on urgent basis after completion of necessary formalities.
(Om Narayan Rai , 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.