M/S. Roysons Ceramics Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Roysons Ceramics Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the order of cancellation of its GST registration dated March 7, 2024, passed under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-furnishing of returns under Section 39 of the Act, following a show cause notice. The petitioner expressed its willingness to continue the business, comply with the Act's provisions, and pay any outstanding tax, interest, penalty, and fine. The respondents are the Union of India and other CGST & CX authorities.
Held
The Court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration was based solely on the ground of non-filing of returns, and there was no allegation of the petitioner adopting dubious methods to evade tax. The Court found that suspending or revoking registration would be counterproductive and detrimental to the revenue's interest, as it would prevent the petitioner from raising invoices and ultimately impact tax recovery. Therefore, the Court directed the respondents to take a pragmatic view and permit the petitioner to continue its business. The order of cancellation dated March 7, 2024, was set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner files all pending returns and pays the applicable tax, interest, penalty, and fine within four weeks of receiving the server copy of the order. The appellate order dated May 30, 2025, rejecting the appeal was also set aside. The Court further directed the respondents to activate the petitioner's portal and login credentials within one week to facilitate compliance. If the petitioner fails to comply with these conditions, the writ petition would stand automatically dismissed. The issue of whether the petitioner had adopted dubious processes to evade tax was expressly not a finding of fact in this case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration on the ground of non-furnishing of returns, where the petitioner is willing to comply and pay dues, is a pragmatic approach, considering the potential impact on revenue recovery? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that it is interested in continuing its business and is agreeable to comply with the provisions of the GST Act and pay all outstanding dues, including tax, interest, penalty, and fine. The petitioner implicitly argued that cancellation would be counterproductive. Revenue/State's argument: The judgment does not explicitly record any arguments made by the respondents. However, the order of cancellation was issued by the revenue authorities on the ground of non-furnishing of returns.
Sections Cited
Section 39
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
24.09.2025 (Pritam)
Ct.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 13950 of 2025
M/s. Roysons Ceramics Private Limited. Versus Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Suryaneel Das.
… For the petitioner.
Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee,
Ms. Ekta Sinha. ....For the respondent/CGST & CX.
Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Kaustav Kanti Maiti.
....for the respondents.
Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.
Challenging the order of cancellation of registration dated March 7, 2024 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 2
registration was issued on the ground of non-furnishing of returns under Section 39 of the said Act.
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 March 7, 2024 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
3
and the writ petition would stand automatically dismissed.
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.
As a sequel thereto, the appellate order dated May 30, 2025 rejecting the appeal is also set aside.
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.