Arup Das vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, Arup Das, filed a writ petition (WPA 6465 of 2023) before the High Court seeking restoration of his GST registration. The Court had previously directed the CGST Authority to provide instructions regarding the revenue due for registration restoration. The CGST Authority, through its counsel, informed the Court that a revenue due in the form of interest needs to be paid by the petitioner for the period from May 2018 to June 2019. The exact amount of this interest was not initially provided.
Held
The Court held that the respondent/CGST Authority concerned must intimate the petitioner the exact amount of interest due for the period from May 2018 to June 2019, which is a prerequisite for the restoration of his GST registration. The Court reasoned that this clarification is necessary for the petitioner to fulfill his obligation. Consequently, the Court directed the CGST Authority to provide this information within three days from the date of the order. Furthermore, the Court ordered the CGST Authority to open the petitioner's portal for a period of 30 days from the date of intimation, allowing the petitioner to make the payment. If the petitioner fails to make the payment within this 30-day period after the portal is opened, the CGST Authority is at liberty to close the portal and proceed as per law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CGST Authority is obligated to intimate the specific amount of interest due for the restoration of the petitioner's GST registration for the period May 2018 to June 2019? The petitioner argued that the CGST Authority must provide the exact figure of the interest due to enable him to make the payment for the restoration of his registration. The CGST Authority, while acknowledging the requirement of interest payment, needed to be instructed to provide the precise amount. The Court's earlier order indicates a need for clarification on this amount.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023 ks WPA 6465 of 2023 sl. 5 Arup Das Vs Union of India & Ors. Mr. Prabir Bera … For the Petitioner. Mr. K.K. Maiti, Mr. Tapan Bhanja … For the CGST Authority. Mr. Vikas Bansal Agrawal … For the Respondent No.
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Pursuant to the earlier order of this court dated 4th April, 2023, by which Mr. Maiti, learned Advocate appearing for the CGST Authority was asked to take instructions about the revenue due which is required to be paid by the petitioner for restoration of his registration. Mr. Maiti on instructions submits that there is a revenue due relating to interest which is required to be paid by the petitioner for restoration of his registration but he could produce the amount and figure of such interest amount for the period from May 2018 to June, 2019. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the parties, this writ petition being WPA 6465 of 2023, is disposed of b
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.