Soumen Maiti (Proprietor Of Agni Enterprise) vs. State Of West Bengal And Anr
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Soumen Maiti, proprietor of Agni Enterprise, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated October 3, 2024, which cancelled his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-furnishing of returns under Section 39 of the WB GST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner expressed his willingness to continue his business and comply with the Act's provisions, including paying outstanding tax, interest, penalty, and fine. The respondents are the State of West Bengal and other relevant authorities.
Held
The Court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's registration was based solely on the non-filing of returns, and there was no allegation of the petitioner engaging in dubious practices to evade tax. The Court found that suspending or revoking registration would be counterproductive and against the interest of revenue, as it would hinder the petitioner's ability to conduct business, raise invoices, and ultimately impact tax recovery. Therefore, the Court decided to set aside the order of cancellation dated October 3, 2024. This decision is conditional upon the petitioner filing all pending returns and paying the applicable tax, interest, penalty, and fine within four weeks of receiving the order. If the petitioner complies, his registration will be restored by the Jurisdictional Officer. Failure to comply will result in the writ petition being automatically dismissed. The respondents are directed to activate the petitioner's portal and login credentials within one week to facilitate compliance.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order of cancellation of registration passed under the WB GST/CGST Act, 2017, is sustainable in law, considering the petitioner's willingness to comply with statutory obligations? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he is willing to comply with the provisions of the Act and pay all outstanding dues, including tax, interest, penalty, and fine. He submitted that the cancellation of registration would be counterproductive and detrimental to revenue recovery as it would prevent him from conducting business and raising invoices. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or revenue authorities. However, the order of cancellation was issued by them on the ground of 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 20178 of 2025
Soumen Maiti (Proirietor of Agni Enterprise). Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Kausheyo Roy, Ms. Alisha Das.
… For the petitioner.
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, Ms. Saptak Sanyal. ....For the State.
Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.
Challenging the order of cancellation of registration dated October 3, 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 October 3, 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.
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.