Amaresh Singh vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Cx, Range-V, Burrabazar Div., CGST And Cx, Kol North Comm. And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Amaresh Singh, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated May 22, 2024, passed by the Superintendent of CGST & CX, Range-V, Burrabazar Division, cancelling his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-furnishing of returns under Section 39 of the relevant Act. The petitioner expressed his willingness to continue his business, comply with the GST provisions, and pay any outstanding tax, interest, penalty, and fine. The court noted that the cancellation was solely for non-filing of returns and not due to any tax evasion practices by the petitioner.
Held
The Court held that cancelling GST registration solely for non-furnishing of returns, without any indication of tax evasion, is counterproductive to revenue interests. The reasoning was that a cancelled registration prevents the petitioner from conducting business, raising invoices, and ultimately impacts the recovery of tax by the revenue. Therefore, the Court found it pragmatic to allow the petitioner to continue his business. The order of cancellation dated May 22, 2024, was set aside, subject to the petitioner filing all pending returns and paying the applicable tax, interest, penalty, and fine within four weeks. The Jurisdictional Officer was directed to restore the petitioner's registration upon compliance. The respondents were also directed to activate the petitioner's portal and login credentials within one week to facilitate compliance. If the petitioner fails to comply within the stipulated time, the writ petition would stand automatically dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration on the sole ground of non-furnishing of returns, without any allegation of tax evasion, is a pragmatic approach, considering its impact on revenue recovery? The petitioner argued that he is willing to comply with the provisions of the GST Act, pay outstanding dues, and continue his business. He contended that revoking registration would be counterproductive and detrimental to revenue collection as it would prevent him from raising invoices and consequently impact tax recovery. The respondents (Superintendent of CGST & CX and others) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the justification of the cancellation order or their stance on the petitioner's willingness to comply. The judgment notes that the cancellation was pursuant to a show cause notice for non-furnishing of returns under Section 39.
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 7761 of 2025
Amaresh Singh. Versus
Superintendent of CGST & CX, Range-V, Burrabazar Division, CGST & CX Kolkata North Commissionerate & Ors.
Mr. Debanuj Basu Thakur.
… For the petitioner.
Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharyy,
Mr. Abhradip Maity.
.....For the respondents.
Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.
Challenging the order of cancellation of registration dated May 22, 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 May 22, 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.
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.