Nemai Chandra Sarkar vs. Superintendent, Kolkata North,Barasat Division, Range-Iv And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Nemai Chandra Sarkar, filed a writ petition challenging an order cancelling his GST registration. The cancellation was due to the delay in filing a return. The petitioner contended that he has since filed the delayed return and paid the due revenue, asserting that no dues remain outstanding against him. The respondent CGST authority did not appear, and Mr. Maiti, who generally represents the department, was engaged by the Court to represent the concerned CGST authority.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent CGST authority to restore the petitioner's GST registration. The portal was ordered to be opened for a period of 30 days. The respondent authority is required to intimate the petitioner within 7 working days if any revenue is due. The petitioner must pay any such intimated dues within 7 days of receiving the intimation. If it is determined that no revenue is due against the petitioner, the portal will remain open in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that prompt restoration of registration and opportunity for compliance should be granted when delayed returns are filed and dues are paid, especially in the absence of revenue due.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration for delay in filing a return is justified, considering the subsequent filing of the return and payment of dues? (Question of law and fact, turning on provisions related to GST registration cancellation and compliance). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that since the return has been filed belatedly and the revenue due has been paid, there should be no outstanding dues against him. Therefore, the cancellation of registration is unwarranted. Revenue's argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondent CGST authority or the Union of India regarding the justification of the cancellation or the petitioner's compliance.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but the context implies provisions related to GST registration cancellation and return filing.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2024 Barasat Division, Range-IV & Ors. Mr. S. S. Sengupta, Mr./Ms. Samiddha Sankar Sengupta, Ms. Bidisha Chakraborty. … For the Petitioner. Mr. K. K. Maiti. …….for the respondent. Mr. Debasish Chaudhuri, Mr. Sovan Mukherjee. …….for the UOI. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. The affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record. In spite of service, none appears for the respondent CGST authority concerned. Mr. Maiti who generally represents the department is engaged by this Court to represent the CGST authority concerned. The main issue involved in this writ petition arises out of the impugned order of cancellation of petitioner’s registration for delay in filing the return in question. Petitioner submits that though belatedly, he has filed the return in question and has also paid the revenue due and there is no due against the petitioner.
2 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the parties, this writ petition being WPA 758 of 2024 is disposed of by directing the respondent C
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.