Anirban Dutta vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Anirban Dutta, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated September 13, 2024, which cancelled his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-furnishing of returns under 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 all outstanding tax, interest, penalty, and fine. The respondents did not contend that the petitioner was involved in any dubious tax evasion practices. The Court noted that suspending or revoking registration could be counterproductive to revenue collection as it would prevent the petitioner from raising invoices and impact tax recovery.
Held
The Court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration was not justified on the sole ground of non-furnishing of returns, especially when the petitioner expressed a willingness to comply with the law and pay all dues. The Court reasoned that revoking registration would be counterproductive to the interests of revenue, as it would prevent the petitioner from conducting business, raising invoices, and consequently, impacting tax recovery. The Court set aside the order of cancellation dated September 13, 2024, and the subsequent appellate order dated June 23, 2025. The restoration of registration was made conditional upon the petitioner filing all pending returns and paying the applicable tax, interest, penalty, and fine within four weeks of receiving the order. The respondents were directed to activate the petitioner's portal and login credentials within one week to facilitate compliance. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration, primarily for non-furnishing of returns under Section 39 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, was justified, considering the petitioner's willingness to comply and pay dues. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he was willing to comply with the provisions of the said Act and pay all outstanding tax, interest, penalty, and fine. He sought to continue his business, and the cancellation of registration would be detrimental to revenue collection. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the State regarding the justification of the cancellation order beyond the stated ground of non-furnishing of returns.
Sections Cited
Section 39
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
12 22.09.2025 Saswata Ct.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE Anirban Dutta Versus The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray Ms. Shiwani Shaw Mr. Gaurav Chakraborty … For the petitioner Mr. A Roy Mr. N.Chatterjee Mr. T. Chakraborty Mr. S. Sanyal … For the State
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained with the record.
Challenging the order of cancellation dated 13th September 2024 passed under the provisions of WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the instant writ petition has been filed.
Today, Mr. Ray, 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.
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 13th September, 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. As a sequel thereto, the order passed by the appellate authority on 23rd June 2025 is also set aside.
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.
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.