Ranjeet Kumar Poddar vs. Superintendent, Range-I, Rishra Div. And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar Poddar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated September 6, 2024, which cancelled his GST registration under the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's primary contention was that the cancellation order was passed without providing him an adequate opportunity to be heard or to respond to the show cause notice. He also argued that the cancellation was based on grounds different from those stated in the show cause notice. The writ petition was filed on December 3, 2024, after the impugned order was passed.
Held
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the denial of an adequate opportunity to respond to the show cause notice. However, it noted that the writ petition was filed on December 3, 2024, while the cancellation order was dated September 6, 2024. The Court also took into consideration that Section 30 of the Act provides a remedy for revocation of cancellation of registration. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the authorities by filing an appropriate application for revocation of cancellation of registration within two weeks from the date of the order. The authorities were directed to hear and dispose of such application on merits, preferably within three weeks of filing, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned order. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these observations and directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration is liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing an adequate opportunity of hearing and response to the show cause notice, and for deviating from the grounds stated in the show cause notice, as contemplated under the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order of cancellation was passed without affording him a proper opportunity to respond to the show cause notice and that the order was de hors the grounds on which the show cause notice was issued. Therefore, the order should be set aside. Revenue's Contention: The respondent CGST authority, referring to Section 30 of the said Act, submitted that the statute provides a right to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration. Since the petitioner had not filed any such application, the Court should not interfere.
Sections Cited
Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
3 25.03.2025 sb Ct 5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 28899 of 2024
Ranjeet Kumar Poddar Versus Superintendent, Range-I, Rishra Division & Ors.
Mr. Piyal Gupta
… For the petitioner
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee
Mr. Abhradip Maity
… For the respondent no.1
Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya
Mr. Ayanabha Raha
… For the respondent no.2. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 6th September, 2024 whereby the petitioner’s registration under the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) has been cancelled.
The petitioner complains that without giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the show cause, the aforesaid order has been passed.
Mr. Gupta, learned advocate appearing in support of the instant writ petition submits that the order challenging the registration has been passed de hors the grounds on which the show cause notice had been
2 issued. Having regard thereto, it is submitted that the aforesaid order should be set aside.
Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent CGST authority by drawing attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 30 of the said Act submits that the statute recognizes a right of a registered person to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration. In this case, no application for revocation of cancellation of registration has been filed. Having regard thereto, no interference is called for.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. I find that the petitioner’s principal grievance is that the petitioner has been denied an opportunity to appropriately respond to the show cause, however, although the order of cancellation of registration had been passed on 6th September, 2024, the instant writ petition has been filed on 3rd December, 2024. Further taking note of the fact that the Act provides for an appropriate remedy in the form of applying for revocation of cancellation of registration as provided under Section 30 of the said Act, I am of the view that the petitioner should approach the authorities by filing an appropriate application for revocation of cancellation of registration. If such application is filed within a period of two weeks from date, the authorities
3 shall, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case hear out and dispose of such application on merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of such application after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by passing a reasoned order.
With the above observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
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.