Tapas Kuamr Basu Roychoudhury vs. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tapas Kumar Basu Roychoudhury, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 16, 2023, 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's provisions, and pay any outstanding tax, interest, penalty, and fine. The Court noted that the petitioner was not attempting to evade tax and that cancelling registration could be counterproductive to revenue collection as it would prevent the petitioner from raising invoices and impacting tax recovery. The Court also noted an appellate order dated March 10, 2025, which was set aside as a sequel.
Held
The Court held that the order of cancellation of GST registration dated March 16, 2023, should be set aside. The Court reasoned that the cancellation was based on non-filing of returns, and it was not a case of the petitioner adopting dubious means to evade tax. The Court found that suspending or revoking registration would be counterproductive to the interests of the revenue, as it would prevent the petitioner from carrying on business, raising invoices, and ultimately impact tax recovery. Therefore, the Court directed the respondents to take a pragmatic view and permit the petitioner to continue his business. The registration would be restored upon the petitioner filing all pending returns and paying the requisite tax, interest, penalty, and fine within four weeks. The respondents were also directed to activate the petitioner's portal and login credentials within one week to facilitate compliance. The appellate order dated March 10, 2025, was also set aside. The ratio decidendi is that a pragmatic approach favouring revenue collection should be adopted, and cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns should be reconsidered if the taxpayer is willing to regularize their compliance and pay dues, provided there is no tax evasion.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order of cancellation of GST registration, passed on the ground of non-furnishing of returns under Section 39 of the WB GST/CGST Act, 2017, should be set aside, considering the petitioner's willingness to comply with the Act and pay dues. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he is willing to continue his business, comply with the provisions of the said Act, and pay all outstanding tax, interest, penalty, and fine. He contended that the cancellation of registration would be detrimental to revenue collection as it would prevent him from conducting business and raising invoices, thus impacting tax recovery. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the State or its representatives beyond their appearance. The Court's reasoning implies a pragmatic approach to revenue collection.
Sections Cited
Section 39
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
21 04.08.2025 sb
Ct.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE Tapas Kumar Basu Roychoudhury Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Siddhartha Pratim Datta
Ms. Sukanya Dutta
Ms. Sanjana Jha
Mr. Rhitam Chatterjee
… For the petitioner
Mr. Amitabrata Roy, Ld. GP
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Mr. Saptak Sanyal
Mr. Debraj Sahu
… For the State.
Challenging the order of cancellation dated 16th March, 2023 passed under the provisions of WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the instant writ petition has been filed.
Today, Ms. Dutta, 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 16th March, 2023, 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 appellate order dated 10th March, 2025 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.