Surojit Das vs. Superintendent Of Central GST And Cx, Range-Iv, Central Div. Kol. North Commi. And Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Surojit Das, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April, 2025, cancelling his GST registration. The grounds for cancellation included the petitioner not conducting business from the declared place of business, the premises being found locked during physical verification, and registered mobile numbers being non-existent or unavailable. The remarks also indicated a failure to submit KYC documents and include additional places of business. The petitioner contended that the authorities failed to adhere to inspection rules and that only one visit was made, suggesting further visits would prove business operations. The cancellation was effective from July 3, 2021.
Held
The Court held that the challenge to the cancellation of GST registration on the grounds of not conducting business from the declared premises involves disputed questions of fact. Such matters cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it would require the Court to delve into factual disputes. The Court noted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority is empowered to direct further inspection and accept additional evidence. Therefore, invoking writ jurisdiction was not justified. However, considering the pendency of the matter, the Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks. The appellate authority was instructed to hear and dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks, and to conduct necessary inquiries regarding the petitioner's place of business.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration based on the premise that the petitioner is not carrying on business from the declared premises is a matter that can be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considering it involves disputed questions of fact? The petitioner argued that the authorities failed to follow proper inspection procedures and that further inspections would demonstrate business activity. The petitioner relied on the principle that proper procedure must be followed by authorities. The revenue or State argued that the issue of whether business is being conducted at the premises requires an examination of disputed facts, which is not suitable for writ jurisdiction. They contended that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy.
Sections Cited
Rule 21(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025
sayandeep Sl. No. 11 Ct. No. 05
WPA 10811 of 2025
Surojit Das Vs. Superintendent of Central GST & CX, Range IV, Central Division & ors.
Mr. Akshat Agarwal Mr. Parikshit Karmakar …. for the petitioner
Ms. Purabi Saha Das
…..for the UOI
Mr. shiv Shankar Banerjee
Mr. Tapan Bhanja
…..for the CGST
The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record.
Challenging the order of cancellation of registration dated April, 2025, the instant writ petition has been filed. The grounds for cancellation are as follows :
“1. Rule 21(a)-Person does not conduct any business from declared place of business/place of business not found Remarks: During physical verification at your declared Principal Place of business at 1st Floor, 122/A, Chittaranjan Avenue, kolkata-700073 wherein door was found locked. Also your registered Mobile no 9051762894 and 8017386810 were found not non- existent/wrong number/not available. It appears from GST Portal that you have failed to submit any KYC related documents during the time of taking GST Registration as well as inclusion of 2(two) Additional Place of Business. You are requested to clarify the reason, if failed further course of action initiated by the department for cancellation of GST Registration.
2 The effective date of cancellation of your registration is 03/07/2021.”
The petitioner would contend that there has been failure on the part of the authorities to adhere the rules as regards holding inspection. This apart according to the petitioner, the concerned officials of the respondents had only visited the premises of the petitioner once. Any further visit by the officials of the respondents is likely to demonstrate that the petitioner is carrying on business from its place of business.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties it prima facie would transpires that the petitioner is challenging an order of cancellation on the ground that the petitioner is carrying on business from the schedule premises. The aforesaid issue in my view cannot form subject matter of challenge in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the same would require this Court to decide on disputed questions of fact.
The petitioner has a remedy in the form of an appeal before the appellate authority. In my view, since the said Act provides for multi tiered adjudication process, the appellate authority is always entitled to direct further inspection of the petitioner’s place of business and accept further report as and by way of an additional evidence. The above cannot justify the petitioner to invoke the writ juri iction.
3
Having regard thereto, I find no reason to entertain the writ petition however, considering the fact that this matter was pending before this Court since 14th May, 2025, I am of the view that in the event the petitioner prefers an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of 4 weeks from date, the appellate authority having regard to the observations made herein shall hear out and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law if required by making necessary enquiry as regards the place of business of the petitioner. If such appeal is filed in the manner provided herein the appellate authority shall hear out the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of filing of the appeal.
With the above observations and directions the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(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.