Rajesh Mishra vs. Asst. Commissioner Of State Tax, Postabazar And Burtola Charge And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Mishra, challenges the cancellation of his GST registration. A show cause notice was issued on April 30, 2025, with a six-day reply period, which the petitioner failed to meet. The registration was cancelled on May 15, 2025, based on a visit by the Anti Evasion Branch, CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate, which found no business activity at the premises. The petitioner's subsequent appeal was rejected on July 13, 2026, for the same reason. The petitioner's sole prayer in the writ petition is for an opportunity to reply to the initial show cause notice.

Held

The Court allowed the petitioner's prayer, granting him seven days to file a reply to the show cause notice dated April 30, 2025. Consequently, the order of cancellation dated May 15, 2025, and the appellate order dated July 13, 2026, were set aside. The respondents are directed to pass a reasoned order within six weeks from the date of the judgment, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and considering his reply. The Court acknowledged the State's opposition but proceeded to grant relief. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness, including an opportunity to be heard and respond to notices, is paramount, and where a petitioner seeks to rectify a procedural lapse and present their case, courts may grant such an opportunity, especially when the substantive orders are based on such procedural shortcomings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice dated April 30, 2025, despite the expiry of the stipulated time, considering the circumstances leading to the cancellation of GST registration? The petitioner argued that he was not afforded adequate time to respond to the show cause notice and sought an opportunity to present his reply. The State respondent, represented by Ms. Manasi Mukherjee and Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee, strongly opposed the petitioner's prayer, likely contending that the petitioner had already failed to comply with the statutory timelines and that the cancellation was based on factual findings of non-operation at the registered premises.