Centaxonline.
com: A Legal Research Platform on GST, Customs, Excise & Service Tax, Foreign Trade Policy
(2025) 30 Centax 134 (Cal.) [10-04-2025]
(2025) 30 Centax 134 (Cal.)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.
NOVOUS INTERIORS PVT. LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
W.P.A. No. 3783 of 2025, decided on 10-4-2025
GST: Where registration of assessee was cancelled for non-filing of returns for
continuous period of six months, such order was to be set aside and registration
was to be restored subject to condition that assessee filed all returns and paid
requisite tax, interest, penalty etc.
Registration - Revocation of cancellation - Restoration on payment and compliance - Registration was cancelled on
ground of non-filing of returns for continuous period of six months - Appeal filed by assessee was also dismissed on
grounds of limitation - Assessee submitted that in event registration was restored, assessee would pay all tax dues
including interest and penalty - HELD : Impugned order cancelling registration was to be set aside subject to condition
that assessee would file its returns, pay requisite amount of tax, interest etc. within a period of six weeks and
registration of assessee was to be restored [Section 30 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ West Bengal Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017] [paras 5 to 7]
In favour of assessee
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Promit Majumdarfor the Petitioner.
S/Shri Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Tapan Bhanja and Ms. Kankana Chakrabortyfor the Respondent.
[Order]. - The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
2. Challenging the order of cancellation dated 26th September, 2023 cancelling the petitioner's registration under the
WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") and the appellate order dated 30th October, 2024 passed
by the appellate authority under Section 107 of he said Act rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation, the present writ
petition has been filed. Records would reveal that a show-cause notice was issued upon the petitioner on 5th July, 2023 calling
upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the registration of the petitioner under the said Act shall not be cancelled for
failing to furnish returns under Section 39 of the said Act for a continuous period of six months. Records would further reveal
that the petitioner did not respond to the said show cause and an order of cancellation was passed. The petitioner did not file
any application for revocation of the order of cancellation as well. Instead had directly filed an appeal before the appellate
authority which appears to have been rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner all along was interested to comply with
the provisions of the said Act. However, for reasons beyond the petitioner's control, the return could not be filed in time. He
submits that the petitioner undertakes that in the petitioner's registration is restored, the petitioner shall not only make payment
of the arrear tax but file returns along with fine, interest and penalty as may be found due and payable by the respondents.
4. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents would however, submit that the order passed by
the appellate authority cannot be faulted. Admittedly, in this case the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and
having regard thereto, the appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeal.
5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the materials on record and
without going into the issue as regards the correctness of the order passed by the appellate authority, I am of the view that
taking note of the submissions made by the petitioner and the fact that suspension/revocation of the license would be
counterproductive and works against the interest of revenue, since in such case, the petitioner would not be able to carry on its
business in a sense that no invoice can be raised by the petitioner and the same would ultimately impact the recovery of tax
and as such it would be in the best interest of the respondents to take a pragmatic view in the matter so as to permit the
petitioner to carry on its business.
6. Having regard to the above and taking note of the undertaking given by the petitioner, I propose to set aside the order
of cancellation of registration dated 26th September, 2023 under the said Act, subject to the condition that the petitioner files
its returns for the entire period of default, pays requisite amount of tax, interest, fine and penalty, if not already paid.
7. It is made clear that if the petitioner complies with the above directions/conditions noted above within a period of six
weeks from the date receipt of the server copy of this order, the petitioner's registration under the said Act shall be restored by
the jurisdictional officer. However, if the petitioner fails to comply with the above direction, the benefit of this order will not
enure to the petitioner and the writ petition shall automatically stand dismissed.
8. For the purpose of compliance of the above direction, the jurisdictional officer is directed to activate the portal within
seven working days from the date of communication of this order so that the petitioner can file its return, pay requisite amount
of tax, interest, fine and penalty, if not already paid.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
10. Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition are deemed not to have
been admitted by the respondents.
■■
_______
