INDIA Docking Engineering Co. vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders of cancellation passed by both concerned authorities. The Court directed the CGST/WBGST authority to restore the petitioner's registration and open the portal for 45 days from the communication of the order. This period is to enable the petitioner to pay all revenue dues, including any penalty indicated by the respondent authority within 15 working days. The Court reasoned that given the petitioner's willingness to clear all dues and the reliance on a previous favorable judgment, restoration was appropriate. The ratio decidendi is that if a taxpayer demonstrates a commitment to clearing all outstanding dues after registration cancellation due to non-filing of returns, the authorities should provide an opportunity for restoration. If the petitioner fails to make the payments within the stipulated time, the respondent authority is free to block the portal again and cancel the registration. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, India Docking Engineering Co., 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 stated that it had paid all outstanding revenue dues and was willing to pay any further amounts required for the restoration of its registration. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the High Court dated April 9, 2024. The State of West Bengal and other respondents were the authorities against whom the petition was filed. The tax period for which the returns were not filed is not explicitly stated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration on the ground of non-filing of returns is sustainable, given the petitioner's subsequent payment of dues and willingness to pay any further amounts required for restoration? (Question of law and fact, turning on provisions related to registration cancellation and restoration under GST law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that since it had paid all revenue dues and was prepared to pay any other amounts, including penalties, its registration should be restored. It relied on a prior judgment of the High Court dated April 9, 2024, which presumably supported such a course of action. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the State or its counsel regarding the sustainability of the cancellation or the petitioner's plea for restoration.