Sandip Kuila vs. Depouty Commissioner Of State Tax And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sandip Kuila, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 13, 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, comply with the Act, and pay any outstanding tax, interest, penalty, and fine. The Court noted that the petitioner was not engaged in tax evasion and that cancelling registration could be counterproductive to revenue recovery as it would prevent the petitioner from raising invoices and carrying on business. An order dated September 1, 2025, rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation was also challenged.
Held
The Court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration was based on non-filing of returns, and it was not a case of tax evasion. The Court found that revoking registration would be counterproductive to revenue interests, as it would prevent the petitioner from conducting business and consequently impact tax recovery. Therefore, the Court decided to set aside the order of cancellation dated February 13, 2024, and the subsequent order dated September 1, 2025, rejecting the revocation application. The petitioner's registration would be restored if he files all pending returns and pays the applicable tax, interest, penalty, and fine within four weeks of receiving the order. The Court directed the respondents to activate the petitioner's portal and login credentials within one week to facilitate compliance. Failure to comply would result in the writ petition being automatically dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order of cancellation of GST registration dated February 13, 2024, passed on the ground of non-furnishing of returns under Section 39 of the WB GST/CGST Act, 2017, is sustainable in law, considering the petitioner's willingness to comply and pay dues. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he is willing to comply with the provisions of the Act and pay all outstanding tax, interest, penalty, and fine. He seeks to continue his business and believes that suspension or revocation of registration would be detrimental to revenue recovery. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or revenue authorities. However, the order was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Tamluk & Ors.
Sections Cited
Section 39
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
26 17.09.2025 sb
Ct.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE Sandip Kuila Versus Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Tamluk & Ors.
Ms. Anupa Banerjee
Ms. Pooja Shukla
… For the petitioner
Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Mr. Saptak Sanyal
… For the State.
Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.
Challenging the order of cancellation dated 13th February, 2024 passed under the provisions of WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the instant writ petition has been filed.
Ms. Banerjee, 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 petitioner 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 February, 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.
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 order dated 1st September, 2025 rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation of registration 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.