Soham Basu vs. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Soham Basu, filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging an order dated April 15, 2024, which cancelled his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-furnishing of returns, as per Section 39 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner expressed his willingness to continue his business, comply with the Act's provisions, and pay any outstanding tax, interest, penalty, and fine. The respondents are the State of West Bengal and other authorities. The procedural history includes an appeal against the cancellation order, which was rejected by an appellate order dated March 5, 2025.
Held
The Court held that the order of cancellation of registration dated April 15, 2024, and the appellate order dated March 5, 2025, rejecting the appeal, should be set aside. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's registration was cancelled solely for non-filing of returns, and there was no allegation of the petitioner adopting dubious means to evade tax. The Court found that suspending or revoking registration would be counterproductive and detrimental to the interest of the revenue, as it would prevent the petitioner from carrying on business, raising invoices, and consequently impact tax recovery. Therefore, a pragmatic approach was deemed necessary. The Court directed that the cancellation order would be set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner files all pending returns for the default period and pays the applicable tax, interest, penalty, and fine within four weeks of receiving the order. The jurisdictional officer is directed to restore the petitioner's registration upon compliance. If the petitioner fails to comply, the writ petition would stand dismissed. The respondents are 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 WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, should be set aside when the petitioner is willing to comply with the law and pay dues, and the cancellation would be counterproductive to revenue collection? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he is willing to comply with the provisions of the said Act and pay all outstanding tax, interest, penalty, and fine. He argued that the cancellation of registration would hinder his ability to conduct business and raise invoices, ultimately impacting the recovery of tax by the revenue. Therefore, a pragmatic view should be taken to allow him to continue his business. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the State in opposition to the petitioner's contentions. The cancellation order was issued based on the non-furnishing of returns.
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 11920 of 2025
Soham Basu. Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Mr. Sutirtha Das.
… For the petitioner.
Mr. T. Chakraborty,
Mr. S. Sanyal.
....For the State.
Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.
Challenging the order of cancellation of registration dated April 15, 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 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 April 15, 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 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.
As a sequel thereto, the appellate order dated March 5, 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.