Arijit Mukherjee vs. Superintendent CGST And Cx, Shyambazar Division, Range-I, Kolkata North Commissionerate And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Arijit Mukherjee, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his GST registration. The cancellation was due to the non-filing of returns within the stipulated due date. The petitioner contended that he has since filed the returns, albeit belatedly. The respondents are the Superintendent CGST & CX, Shyambazar Division, Range-I, Kolkata North Commissionerate, and other authorities of the Union of India. The specific tax period(s) for which the returns were not filed and the exact date of cancellation are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The amount in dispute, if any, is also not quantified.

Held

The Court directed the respondent authorities to intimate the petitioner any revenue due, if required to be paid for the restoration of his registration, within 7 days from the date of the order. The petitioner is then required to pay such intimated revenue within 7 days of receiving the intimation. Upon payment of the due revenue, the petitioner's registration will be restored within 7 days. If the authority finds no revenue due, the registration will be immediately restored. The Court's decision is based on a pragmatic approach to facilitate the continuation of the petitioner's business operations by allowing for the payment of any outstanding dues and subsequent restoration of registration. The ratio decidendi is that where a taxpayer has rectified the non-compliance by filing returns and is willing to clear any financial dues, the authorities should facilitate the restoration of registration to avoid undue hardship, provided the statutory requirements for dues are met.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration for non-filing of returns within the due date is justified, considering the subsequent belated filing of the returns? (Question of law and fact, potentially turning on provisions related to registration cancellation and return filing requirements under the CGST Act). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the returns have now been filed, even if belatedly, the cancellation of registration should be reconsidered, and the registration should be restored. The petitioner implicitly relies on the principle of allowing genuine business operations to continue where compliance has been achieved, even if delayed. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the Union of India. It only notes their appearance through learned advocates.