Sanjay Kumar Gupta vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Gupta, proprietor of M/s Gupta and Company, had his GST registration suspended and subsequently cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-1, Durg on August 19, 2025. An earlier writ petition (WPT No. 182 of 2025) was withdrawn with liberty to appeal. The appellate authority restored the cancellation of registration, subject to fulfilling conditions in the second proviso to Rule 23 of CGST Rules, 2017 within 30 days. The petitioner claims he could not file pending returns due to portal issues, leading to a fresh cancellation of his registration on April 28, 2026, by the same authority for failing to file returns within the stipulated period. He sought permission to file pending returns and restoration of his GST registration.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority had allowed the petitioner's appeal, restoring his GST registration conditional upon filing pending returns within 30 days. However, the petitioner was unable to submit these returns due to portal issues. The Court found that as the appeal was allowed, the competent authority should have opened the portal to allow the petitioner to submit the pending returns, but this opportunity was not afforded. Consequently, the cancellation of registration was deemed improper. The Court quashed the order dated May 12, 2026, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal) and the order dated April 28, 2026, which cancelled the GST registration. The competent authority was directed to open the portal, inform the petitioner, and permit him to submit pending returns within seven days, after which the GST registration would be restored. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory appeal is allowed with a condition that requires interaction with a government portal, the authorities have a duty to ensure such access is provided, failing which a subsequent cancellation based on non-compliance with the condition would be unsustainable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, having been granted liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority, was afforded a fair opportunity to comply with the conditions stipulated for restoration of his GST registration, specifically concerning the filing of pending returns. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural compliance under the CGST Act and Rules). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was unable to file pending tax returns because he had no control over the GST portal, despite the appellate authority's order restoring his registration subject to filing returns within 30 days. He argued that the competent authority should have facilitated portal access for him to submit the returns, and his registration was wrongly cancelled again when this opportunity was not provided. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, represented by the P.L., argued that an efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner by preferring an appeal before the appellate authority, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.