GST: Where assessee’s GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns, assessee prayed for restoration of registration, was ready to deposit all dues, respondent-authority was to be directed to restore assessee’s registration and open portal for 30 days to enable assessee to file return and pay all dues in said time frame
[2024] 161 taxmann.com 593 (Calcutta)
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Suraj Mahapatra
v.
State of West Bengal*
HARISH TANDON AND HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, JJ.
MAT NO. 558 OF 2024
MARCH 28, 2024
Cancellation of registration – Non filing of returns – Assessee’s GST registration was cancelled on ground of non-filing of returns – Assessee prayed for direction to authorities to restore assessee’s registration and thereafter assessee would pay all revenue dues – Impugned order rejecting prayer for interim order in petition was challenged in instant intra-court appeal by assessee – HELD: Since cancellation of assessee’s registration was only on ground of non-filing of returns, respondent-authority was to be directed to restore assessee’s registration and open portal for a limited period of 30 days to enable assessee to file return and pay all tax dues with said time frame [Section 29 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017] [Paras 5 and 6] [In favour of assessee]
The High Court’s direction to the relevant department to restore the GST registration of an assessee, which had been previously cancelled is commendable. The court recognized the critical implications that the cancellation had on the assessee’s ability to conduct business operations, noting that such cancellations can prevent taxpayers from fulfilling their compliance obligations, including the filing of returns. This restoration order also included a directive for the department to reopen their online portal for a period of 30 days specifically to allow the assessee to file any pending GST returns. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that administrative actions do not unjustly hinder an entity’s right to business and compliance, highlighting the importance of maintaining a balance between regulatory enforcement and taxpayer rights. The court’s intervention in this case reflects its proactive approach in addressing procedural fairness and ensuring that businesses can rectify compliance issues within a reasonable framework – JSPCO
