Braten Mandal vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Braten Mandal, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated September 12, 2023, which cancelled his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-furnishing of returns, as per Section 39 of the GST Act. The petitioner expressed his willingness to continue his business and comply with the provisions of the Act, including paying any outstanding tax, interest, penalty, and fine. The respondents are the Union of India and others. The court noted that the petitioner was not engaged in any dubious tax evasion practices.
Held
The Court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration was to be set aside. The reasoning was that the cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns, when the petitioner was willing to comply and pay dues, would be counterproductive to the interest of the revenue. The inability to raise invoices would impact tax recovery. The Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry on his business. The order of cancellation dated September 12, 2023, was set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner files all pending returns and pays the requisite tax, interest, penalty, and fine within four weeks of receiving the server copy of the order. If compliance is made, the Jurisdictional Officer shall restore the petitioner's registration. Failure to comply would result in the writ petition being automatically dismissed. The respondents were also directed to activate the petitioner's portal and login credentials within one week to facilitate compliance.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-furnishing of returns, under Section 39 of the GST Act, is justified when the petitioner is willing to comply with the law and pay dues? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that he wishes to continue his business and is prepared to fulfill all statutory obligations, including filing pending returns and paying applicable tax, interest, penalty, and fine. He argued that cancelling his registration would be counterproductive to revenue collection as it would prevent him from raising invoices and thus hinder tax recovery. Revenue's argument: The respondents' argument is not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the basis of their action was the non-furnishing of returns, leading to the cancellation order.
Sections Cited
Section 39
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
24.09.2025 (Pritam)
Ct.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 5686 of 2025
Braten Mandal. Versus Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee.
… For the petitioner.
Ms. Manasi Mukherjee, Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee.
....For the respondents/UoI.
Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.
Challenging the order of cancellation of registration dated September 12, 2023 passed under the provisions of WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the instant writ petition has been filed.
Learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition would submit that the petitioner is interested to continue with the business and is agreeable to comply with the provisions of the said Act and to pay the outstanding tax, interest, penalty and fine as may be applicable.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it would transpire that pursuant to a show cause notice, the aforesaid order of cancellation of registration was issued on the ground of non-furnishing of returns under Section 39 of the said Act.
2
I find in this case that the registration of the petitioner had been cancelled on the ground of non-filing of returns. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had been adopting dubious process to evade tax. Taking note of the fact that the suspension/revocation of registration would be counterproductive and works against the interest of the revenue since, the petitioner in such case would not be 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.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I propose to set aside the order of cancellation dated September 12, 2023 subject to the condition that the petitioner files the returns for the entire period of default and pays requisite amount of tax, interest, penalty and fine as may be applicable.
It is made clear that if the petitioner complies with the directions/conditions noted above within four weeks from 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. 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.
3
For the purpose of compliance of the above directions, the respondents are directed to activate the petitioner’s portal and login credentials within one week from date so that the petitioner can file his returns, pays requisite amount of tax, interest, fine and penalty.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Hon’ble Court.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of 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.