2024 (6) TMI 83 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration of the petitioner - petitioner failed to file his returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT - The registration of the petitioner had been cancelled on the ground of non-filing of returns. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had been adopting dubious process to evade tax. Taking note of the fact that the suspension/revocation of license would be counterproductive and works against the interest of the revenue since, the petitioner in such a case would not able to carry on his business in the sense that no invoice can be raised by the petitioner and ultimately would impact recovery of tax, the respondents should take a pragmatic view in the matter and permit the petitioner to carry on his business. Taking note of the direction issued by the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhankar Golder 2024 (5) TMI 1262 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT , it is proposed to set aside the order dated 4th February 2022 cancelling the registration of the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner files his returns for the entire period of default and pays requisite amount of tax and interest and fine and penalty. The respondents are directed to open the portal within one week from date, so that the petitioner can file his returns, pays requisite amount of tax and interest and fine and penalty - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to cancellation of registration under WBGST Act, 2017 due to non-filing of returns.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of registration under the WBGST Act, 2017, citing failure to file returns for six months. The petitioner expressed willingness to comply with the Act and sought to set aside the cancellation order. The petitioner referred to a previous judgment where a similar cancellation was overturned upon fulfilling certain conditions.

The State argued that the petitioner had not complied with statutory provisions, leading to the cancellation of registration. The authorities maintained that the petitioner was given an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice but failed to do so, justifying the cancellation.

The court noted that the cancellation was based on non-filing of returns and not on tax evasion. Recognizing that suspending the registration would hinder business operations and tax recovery, the court urged a pragmatic approach. The court emphasized the importance of the petitioner filing returns to determine the final liability.

In line with a previous Division Bench directive, the court set aside the cancellation order, contingent on the petitioner filing returns for the default period and paying the necessary tax, interest, fine, and penalty. Failure to comply within four weeks would result in dismissal of the petition. The court directed the authorities to facilitate compliance by opening the portal promptly.

The court disposed of the writ application without costs, instructing all parties to act based on the official copy of the order from the court's website.