Sajal Kumar Das vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sajal Kumar Das, challenged an order dated January 10, 2022, for the cancellation of his GST registration. The petitioner invoked the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court without first availing the statutory remedy of revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the State GST Act. The petitioner's grievance also included the non-supply of the report on which the cancellation order was based. The respondents are the Union of India and the State.
Held
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-supply of the report and the fact that he had not availed the statutory remedy. The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application for revocation of cancellation of registration within two weeks. The respondents were directed to consider and dispose of this application in accordance with law, passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of its filing. Additionally, the respondent concerned was directed to serve a copy of the report or reasons forming the basis of the impugned cancellation order to the petitioner within one week from the date of the order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided but provided a procedural path for resolution.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner, having a statutory remedy under Section 30 of the State GST Act for revocation of cancellation of registration, was justified in invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court directly? (Question of law) 2. Whether the order of cancellation of registration is vitiated by non-supply of the report/reasons forming the basis of the order to the petitioner? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was not supplied with the report forming the basis of the cancellation order. He invoked the writ jurisdiction directly due to this grievance. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents pointed out that the petitioner had a statutory remedy under Section 30 of the State GST Act, which he had not availed. They did not explicitly argue on the non-supply of the report.
Sections Cited
Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022. p.b. Sl. No.
W.P.A. 1280 of 2022 (Through Video Conference) Sajal Kumar Das Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Suvranil Saha. ……..for the petitioner. Ms. Mrinalini Majumdar. ……..for the UOI. Mr. A. Ray, Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. D. Ghosh. ……….for the State. In this matter, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 10th January, 2022 for cancellation of registration of the petitioner against which remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 30 of the State GST Act, making prayer for revocation of cancellation of registration which the petitioner has not availed and has straight-away invoked the Constitutional Writ Juri iction. Petitioner’s further grievance is that the petitioner was not supplied with any report on the basis of which order of cancellation of registration has been made, till date. Considering the submission of the parties, this writ petition being WPA No.1280 of 2022 is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application for revocation of cancellation of registration
2 within two weeks from date and if such application is filed, the respondents concerned shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law and by passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the date of making such application. Respondent concerned is also directed to serve a copy of the report/reason to the petitioner on the basis of which the impugned order of cancellation of registration has been made within a week from date. With this observation and direction, the writ petition being WPA No.1280 of 2022 is disposed of. (Md. Nizamuddin, J.)
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.