Sourav Roy Burman vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, College Street Charge And Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, Sourav Roy Burman, filed a writ petition (WPA 6333 of 2023) before the High Court. The petitioner sought restoration of his GST registration. Following a previous order dated April 4, 2023, the respondent GST authority, represented by Mr. Ghosh, informed the Court that the petitioner owed Rs. 7,30,621/- as revenue due for the restoration of his registration. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee and Mr. Gobinda Dey, while the State was represented by Mr. Anirban Ray and others. The case concerns the petitioner's GST registration and the amount required for its restoration.
Held
The Court directed the respondent GST authority to open the petitioner's GST portal within three days from the communication of the order. This opening is for a period of thirty days, specifically to enable the petitioner to make the payment of Rs. 7,30,621/-. The Court further stipulated that if the petitioner fails to make the payment within these thirty days, the respondent authority is free to close the portal again and proceed in accordance with law. The Court clarified that this payment would be without prejudice to the petitioner's right to claim for adjustment if the amount paid is in excess of the actual amount due, by making an appropriate representation. No specific provision of the GST Act was explicitly discussed or interpreted in relation to the core dispute, but the order facilitates compliance with revenue demands.
Key Issues
1. Whether the GST portal should be opened for the petitioner to make the stipulated payment for the restoration of his registration, and if so, for what period? The petitioner argued for the opening of the portal to facilitate payment of the revenue due. The State, through its counsel, submitted that Rs. 7,30,621/- is the revenue due for the restoration of the petitioner's registration. The Court had to decide on the terms and conditions under which the portal would be opened, considering the amount stated by the revenue.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPA 6333 OF 2023
2023
Sourav Roy Burman Sl no. 13
- Vs – Ct no. 2
The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, P.M.
College Street Charge & Ors
Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee,
Mr. Gobinda Dey
… for the petitioner
Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. Govt. Pleader Md. T. M. Siddiqui,
Mr. D. Ghosh,
Mr. N. Chatterjee,
Mr. V. Kothari
… for the State.
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court dated 4th April, 2023 by which Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate representing WBGST authority concerned was asked to take appropriate instruction with regard with regard to revenue due which is required to be paid by the petitioner for restoration of his registration, Mr. Ghosh, on instruction submits that Rs. 7,30,621/- is the revenue due which is required to be paid by the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and submission of the parties this writ petition being WPA 6333 of 2023 is disposed of by directing the respondent GST authority concerned
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.