Indrajit Mali vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Cx, Krishnanagar Charge And Ors.

Held

The Court held that since there were no allegations of fraud, tax evasion, or other dubious transactions against the petitioner, restoring the registration upon compliance would not cause any loss to the revenue. The Court drew parity with the decision in Sagorika Sarkar (supra), where a similar situation of registration cancellation for non-filing of returns was addressed. The Court reasoned that suspension or revocation of registration can be counterproductive, impacting the revenue's ability to recover taxes as the assessee cannot raise invoices. Therefore, a pragmatic view is warranted. The Court directed that if the petitioner files all pending returns for the entire period of default and pays all applicable taxes, interest, late fees, fines, and penalties within six weeks, the registration shall be restored. The impugned appellate order and the cancellation order shall be treated as set aside. The respondents were directed to activate the petitioner's portal credentials within a week to facilitate compliance. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Indrajit Mali, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 13, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. This appellate order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an earlier order dated March 15, 2023, passed by the Superintendent of CGST and CX, Krishnanagar. The Superintendent's order had cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The dismissal of the appeal was solely on the ground of delay in filing. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to serious indisposition. The petitioner's registration was cancelled for continuous failure to furnish returns for six months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's GST registration, cancelled for non-furnishing of returns for six months, should be restored, considering the absence of allegations of fraud or tax evasion, and the petitioner's claim of indisposition leading to delayed appeal filing? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to serious indisposition. They relied on a previous order of this Court in Sagorika Sarkar vs. Union of India & Ors. (WPA 15766 of 2025), where similar writ petitions were entertained, and registrations were restored upon compliance with conditions. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the GST authorities or the Union of India regarding the petitioner's contentions or the merits of the cancellation order.