Saiekh Mabarak, Prop Of Sk. Mobarak vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Saiekh Mabarak, proprietor of Sk. Mobarak, challenged the cancellation of his GST registration. A show cause notice was issued on August 13, 2024, for non-filing of returns. The petitioner claimed he was unable to file returns due to a pilgrimage for hauz yatra in 2025. Subsequently, the GST authorities cancelled his registration on February 19, 2025, citing non-submission of returns for six continuous months. The petitioner stated that the time limit for filing a revocation application had expired, and the portal did not allow uploading due to the delay. The respondent authorities argued that the petitioner neither filed returns nor replied to the show cause notice and failed to apply for revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2019.
Held
The Court, while not entirely satisfied with the pleadings, decided in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to file a physical application for revocation of cancellation of registration along with relevant documents before Respondent No. 3 within two weeks. Respondent No. 3 is directed to consider this application expeditiously, preferably within four weeks of receipt, and pass a reasoned order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, including a personal hearing. The decision is to be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter. The Court quashed and set aside the order dated February 19, 2025, and disposed of the writ petition without delving into the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of procedural technicalities preventing a party from availing statutory remedies, especially when a reasonable explanation is provided, the court may direct the authority to consider the application physically to ensure justice.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration on February 19, 2025, for non-filing of returns was justified, considering the petitioner's claim of being on pilgrimage and the subsequent inability to file a revocation application within the stipulated time frame under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2019 is mentioned in the judgment, likely a typo for 2017). The petitioner argued that the portal's system-generated nature prevented him from filing the revocation application after the expiry of the prescribed time. The respondent authorities contended that the petitioner failed to file returns, respond to the show cause notice, and did not comply with the procedure for revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, despite opportunities given. They also argued that the petitioner did not appear before the concerned authority.
Sections Cited
Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026
Ct. no.10
Sl. No.19
b.r.
WPA 10447 of 2026
Saiekh Mabarak Proprietor of Sk. Mobarak
Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Prabir Bera …. For the petitioner
Mr. Pradip Kumar Kundu … for the Union of India.
Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sujit Mitra …. For the Respondent nos. 2 and 3. 1. Heard the parties through their respective Learned counsels.
Main issue involved in the present Writ Petition pertains to cancellation of the petitioner’s registration on the ground of non-filing of returns.
The petitioner submits that a show cause notice has been issued on 13.08.2024, however, due to his pilgrimage for hauz yatra, 2025, he has been unable to take necessary steps to file the returns in terms of the directions issued by the respondent GST authorities.
Subsequently the GST authorities passed an order cancelling the registration on 19.02.2025 due to non-submission of return for a continuous period
2 of six months despite their being a direction to file the returns within three months from the date of the order. The petitioner has failed to comply with the same.
The petitioner submits that the time for filing the revocation application has already expired. Since the portal is system generated, it does not permit uploading of the application as the prescribed time limit has already expired.
The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities vehemently opposes the submissions of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner neither filed his return nor submitted a reply to the show cause notice on 13.08.2024. 7. The petitioner also did not comply with the requirement of filing an application for revocation of cancellation of registration under Section 30 of Central Goods and Services Act, 2019, after passing of the order, cancelling the registration.
It is further submitted by the respondent that an opportunity has already been given to the petitioner but he did not appear before the concerned authority.
Having heard the rival contention of the parties and upon perusing the available records, I am of the considered view that though this court is not
3 satisfied with the pleadings in this Writ Petition, in the interest of justice the petitioner is directed to file an application physically along with relevant documents under Section 30 of the said Act, 2019 before the respondent No. 3 within a period of two weeks from date.
The respondent No. 3 shall consider the said application expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt thereof and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing preferably by granting a personal hearing to the petitioner. The said decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter.
With the above observations the order dated 19.02.2025 is quashed and set aside. Accordingly the writ petition No. WPA 10447 of 2026 stands disposed of without going into the merits of the case.
Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.
(Smita Das De, 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.