Santosh Baidya vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Santosh Baidya, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of their GST registration. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-filing of returns. The petitioner stated that they had paid all outstanding revenue dues after the cancellation and were willing to pay any further amounts required to restore their registration. They relied on a previous judgment dated 09.04.2024. The State, represented by the respondent authorities, was also heard. The matter was considered by the High Court.
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. Furthermore, the portal was to be opened for a period of 45 days from the date of communication of the order to enable the petitioner to make payments. This payment was to include all revenue due, as well as any other dues, including penalties, to be indicated by the respondent authority within 15 working days. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner failed to make these payments after the amount was indicated, the respondent authority would be free to block the portal again and cancel the registration. The ratio decidendi appears to be that a taxpayer's willingness to clear all dues and comply with statutory obligations, coupled with a prior judicial precedent, can warrant the restoration of a cancelled GST registration.
Key Issues
1. Whether the GST registration, cancelled on the ground of non-filing of returns, should be restored upon payment of all dues and penalties, considering the petitioner's willingness to comply. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of provisions related to registration cancellation and restoration under the GST regime. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had paid all due revenue and were prepared to pay any outstanding amounts, including penalties, to have their registration restored. They relied on a prior judgment of the High Court dated 09.04.2024, implying a precedent for such relief. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that the State's counsel was heard, but does not explicitly detail their arguments. However, the court's order implies that the revenue's primary concern would be the recovery of outstanding tax liabilities and compliance with statutory requirements.
Sections Cited
CGST Act, WBST Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
8 SM
2025. WPA 30835 of 2024
Santosh Baidya Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee
Mr. Subhasis Poddar Mrs. Suman Sahani … for the petitioner
Md. T. M. Siddiqui
Mr. N. Chatterjee Mr. T. Chakraborty Mr. D. Sahu
… for the state
Affidavit of service filed today is kept with the record. Heard Learned Counsels appearing for the parties. The main issue involved in this writ petition relates to the cancellation of petitioner’s registration on the ground of non-filing of return. Petitioner submits that after the cancellation of its registration, it has paid all the revenue due and further agrees to pay any outstanding revenue for restoring its registration and relies on a judgment dated 09.04.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya. Considering the submissions of the parties, this writ petition being WPA 30835 of 2024 is disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders of both the concerned
2 authorities and by directing the respondent CGST/WBGST authority to restore the petitioner’s registration and open the portal for a period of 45 days from date of communication of this order by the counsel of the respondent authority to enable the petitioner to make the payment of revenue due as well as any other due including penalty to be indicated by the respondent authority concerned within a period of 15 working days. If the petitioner fails to make the payment of revenue due after indication of the amount by the GST authority, the respondent authority concerned shall be free to block the portal again and cancel the registration. There shall be no order as to costs. All parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, 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.