Ashok Kumar Srivastava vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Cx, Asansol-I Div., Range-I And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration was primarily on the ground of non-filing of returns, and there was no allegation of the petitioner engaging in tax evasion. The Court observed that suspending or revoking a registration can be counterproductive, as it prevents the business from operating and issuing invoices, ultimately impacting tax recovery. Taking a pragmatic view and following the directions issued in the case of *Subhakar Golder*, the Court decided to set aside the cancellation order dated 2nd March, 2023. This relief is conditional upon the petitioner filing all pending returns for the period of default and paying the requisite tax, interest, fine, and penalty within four weeks of receiving the order. The Court directed the respondents to activate the portal within one week to facilitate the petitioner's compliance. If the petitioner fails to comply with these conditions, the writ petition will stand automatically dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Srivastava, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 2nd March, 2023, passed by the Superintendent of CGST and CX, Asansol-I, cancelling his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner contended that he intended to comply with the law but failed to submit an appropriate response to the show cause notice due to oversight. He relied on a Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in *Subhakar Golder v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax* where a similar cancellation order was set aside on conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of cancellation of GST registration dated 2nd March, 2023, passed by the Superintendent of CGST and CX, Asansol-I, is sustainable in law, considering the petitioner's failure to file returns for six months and his subsequent submission to the Court? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and relevant rules). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that his failure to file returns was unintentional and that he is willing to comply with all statutory requirements. He relied on the precedent set in *Subhakar Golder v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax* (MAT 639 of 2024) where similar circumstances led to the setting aside of a registration cancellation order, subject to conditions. Revenue's arguments: The respondents (CGST Authorities) argued that the petitioner had failed to comply with statutory provisions, leading to the cancellation of his registration. They contended that an opportunity to show cause was provided, and since no appropriate reply was received, the cancellation was justified, and no irregularity occurred.