Biswajit Basu vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Services Tax Ad Central Excise, Budge And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Biswajit Basu, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation was primarily due to non-filing of returns. The petitioner contended that it had since paid all outstanding revenue and was willing to pay any further dues, including penalties, to have its registration restored. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the High Court dated April 9, 2024, which dealt with a similar issue. The respondent authorities were the Superintendent of Central Goods And Services Tax & Central Excise, Budge Budge, Range-1, Joka Division, Kolkata South Commissionerate, and others.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders of the concerned authorities that led to the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. The Court directed the respondent CGST/WBGST authority to restore the petitioner's registration and to open the GST portal for a period of 45 days from the date of communication of the order. This period is intended to enable the petitioner to make the payment of all revenue due, as well as any other dues including penalties, which the respondent authority is to indicate within 15 working days. The Court's reasoning appears to be based on the petitioner's willingness to clear all dues and the precedent set by the judgment cited by the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that registration cancellation for non-filing of returns can be set aside and registration restored if the taxpayer undertakes to clear all dues, including penalties, within a stipulated period. If the petitioner fails to make the payments as directed, the respondent authority is free to block the portal again and cancel the registration. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST registration of the petitioner, cancelled on the ground of non-filing of returns, should be restored upon the petitioner's undertaking to pay all outstanding revenue and penalties, in light of the principles laid down in a previous High Court judgment. The petitioner argued that having paid all due revenue and agreeing to clear any further outstanding amounts, including penalties, its registration should be restored. The petitioner relied on a judgment dated April 9, 2024, passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, which presumably supported restoration in similar circumstances. The revenue or State's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the provided text.