Amit Kumar Routh vs. State Of West Bengal And Anr

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled only on the ground of failure to furnish returns for the prescribed periods. It was not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was involved in any fraudulent transaction, adopted dubious processes to evade tax, or committed any other similar mischief. Therefore, the Court was of the view that the petitioner should be afforded one more opportunity to get his registration restored. The Court directed that if the petitioner files returns for the entire period of default and pays all outstanding taxes, interest, late fees, fine, and penalty within six weeks from the date of the order, the jurisdictional officer shall restore the registration. The impugned order dated December 5, 2024, shall be treated as set aside in such an event. The Court also directed the respondents to activate the petitioner's portal and login credentials within one week to facilitate compliance. The order clarified that failure to comply within the stipulated period would result in the automatic dismissal of the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Kumar Routh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 5, 2024, which cancelled his GST registration under the W.B.G.S.T. Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. The cancellation was solely for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner expressed his willingness to continue the business and comply with the Act by paying all outstanding taxes, late fees, interest, penalties, and fines. He also cited a previous judgment of the High Court in Sagorika Sarkar vs. Union of India & Ors. where registration was restored for similar reasons.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for continuous non-filing of returns for six months, without any allegation of fraud or tax evasion, warrants restoration of the registration, considering the petitioner's willingness to comply with statutory obligations? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the W.B.G.S.T. Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was based solely on non-filing of returns and that the court has previously granted relief in similar cases, citing the judgment in Sagorika Sarkar vs. Union of India & Ors. The petitioner is prepared to pay all dues and comply with the law. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or State.