Sumanta Ghosh vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Sumanta Ghosh, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-filing of returns. The petitioner contended that after the cancellation, it had paid all outstanding revenue and was willing to pay any further amounts required for the restoration of its registration. The State of West Bengal and other respondents were the authorities against whom the petition was filed. The tax period for which the returns were not filed is not explicitly stated in the judgment. The impugned order refers to the cancellation of registration by the adjudicating authority.

Held

The Court decided to set aside the impugned order of the adjudicating authority. The Court directed the respondent GST authority to restore the petitioner's registration and open the portal for a period of 30 days from the date of the order. This would enable the petitioner to make the payment of any revenue due, as indicated by the respondent authority within seven working days. The Court reasoned that considering the petitioner's submission of having paid dues and willingness to pay any further amounts, a restoration of registration with a clear payment window would be appropriate. The ratio of the decision is that if a taxpayer has paid outstanding dues and expresses willingness to clear any remaining liability for restoration of registration, the GST authorities should provide an opportunity for such payment before finalizing cancellation. If the petitioner fails to make the payment within the stipulated time after the authority indicates the amount, the authority is free to block the portal again and cancel the registration. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST registration of the petitioner was liable to be cancelled on the ground of non-filing of returns, considering the subsequent payment of dues and willingness to pay any further amounts required for restoration? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of provisions related to cancellation of registration and restoration under the GST Act). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that it had paid all revenue due after the cancellation of its registration and agreed to pay any further amounts necessary for restoring its registration. The petitioner sought the restoration of its GST registration. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State or revenue authorities regarding the cancellation of registration or the petitioner's submissions. The State was represented by learned advocates.