Harekrishna Sahoo vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders of cancellation passed by both the concerned CGST/WBGST authorities. The Court directed the respondent authorities 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 authorities are to indicate within 15 working days. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner fails to make the payment after the amount is indicated, the respondent authorities are free to block the portal again and cancel the registration. The ratio of the decision is that where a taxpayer has taken steps to clear dues and demonstrates willingness to comply with all requirements for restoration after registration cancellation due to non-filing of returns, the authorities should provide an opportunity for restoration, subject to payment of all dues and penalties within a stipulated period, aligning with principles of fairness and the intent of the GST law to facilitate business operations.

Facts

The petitioner, Harekrishna Sahoo, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-filing of returns. The petitioner contended that it has since paid all outstanding revenue and is willing to pay any further amounts due for the restoration of its registration. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the High Court dated April 9, 2024. The respondents are the State of West Bengal and other GST authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration on the ground of non-filing of returns is sustainable, considering the petitioner's subsequent payment of dues and willingness to pay any further amounts required for restoration? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and statutory provisions relating to registration cancellation and restoration). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that it has cleared all revenue dues and is prepared to pay any other charges, including penalties, to have its registration restored. The petitioner cited a prior High Court judgment dated April 9, 2024, as precedent for relief in similar circumstances. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.