Md. Yaqub Ansari vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Srirampur, Range-Iv And Anr

Held

The Court held that given the absence of any allegations of fraud or mischief against the petitioner, and the cancellation being solely due to a continuous default in filing returns for six months, it was proper to grant the petitioner an opportunity to rectify the mistake. The Court reasoned that restoring the registration, subject to conditions, would not prejudice the revenue and would enable the petitioner to resume business. Accordingly, the Court ordered that if the petitioner files all pending returns, pays the requisite tax, interest, fine, late fees, and penalty within four weeks, the cancellation order dated May 22, 2024, would be set aside and the registration restored. The Court also directed the GST authorities to activate the portal and login credentials for the petitioner within a week to facilitate compliance. If the petitioner fails to comply, the writ petition would stand dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Yaqub Ansari, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 22, 2024, passed by the Superintendent, Central CGST, Srirampur, Range – IV. This order cancelled the petitioner's GST registration under the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, citing failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner argued that while the order was appealable, the High Court has a practice of entertaining writ petitions against such orders and allowing registration restoration upon compliance with certain conditions. The petitioner cited a previous order by a Division Bench in a similar case, Subhankar Golder vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Serampore Charge & Ors., to support this contention.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can entertain a petition challenging an order cancelling GST registration when such an order is appealable under the statute? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the High Court has consistently entertained writ petitions against orders of registration cancellation, even if appealable, and has granted relief by restoring registration subject to the petitioner filing all pending returns and paying all due taxes, interest, penalties, and late fees. They relied on the Division Bench order in Subhankar Golder vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Serampore Charge & Ors. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue authorities on this issue. However, their participation in the proceedings implies they were defending the order of cancellation.