M/S. Cigfil Retail Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 5643 Cal

10.11.2021
   ks                           WPA 16415 of 2021
 sl. 63
                           M/s. CIGFIL Retail Pvt. Ltd.
                                      Vs
                            Union of India & Ors.

             Mr. S. Chakraborty,
             Ms. Pooja Sah,
             Mr. Sourish Ray,
             Mr. Yash Sanklocha
                           ... For the Petitioner.
             Mr. Sujit Mitra
                        ... For the UOI.
             Mr. A. Roy, Ld. GP
             Mr. T.M. Siddiqui,
             Mr. N. Chatterjee
                           ... For the State.


                  Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

                  The petitioner has challenged the impugned order

             dated 8th February, 2021 cancelling its registration

             under GST under the provisions of Section 29(2) of the

             State GST Act on the ground that registration in

             question was obtained by documents void ab initio and

             that there was no existence of business at the declared

             place and the impugned order dated 16th April, 2021

             rejecting the petitioner's application for revocation of

             cancellation and the order of the Appellate authority

             dated 25th August, 2021. Such impugned order was

             passed after issuing show-cause-notice dated 1st

             February, 2021 and upon consideration of the reply to

             the said show-cause-notice. The case of the petitioner

             is    that   the   impugned   order   of   cancellation   of

             registration was purely on technical ground of minor
                               2




defect in the sub-let agreement, which was entered

into by and between the petitioner and the lessor,

where the lessor has made some incorrect description

about its status and for such incorrect description by

the lessor, the petitioner cannot be faulted.           The

petitioner   further   submits     that   such    incorrect

description or such defect in the rent agreement was

rectified by a supplementary agreement and this was

produced before the authority concerned at the time of

hearing of the show-cause-notice, which was not

considered by the petitioner. So far as allegation of

non-existence of the petitioner at the registered place

is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that during

Covid-19, to avoid the violation of Covid-19 protocol, it

was carrying on business from some other places and

during this period it had paid tax to the State

respondents    from    time   to   time   and    the   State

respondents/GST Authority concerned have received

taxes under the GST for carrying on business at the

relevant period, which are all parts of record.

Considering these facts as well as in view of the

facts and circumstances of the case that it is not a

case of tax evasion or causing revenue loss to the

Government rather petitioner's activity of carrying on

the business which cannot be called illegal is creating

revenue for the State as well as in helping the State to

solve the problem of unemployment a little bit and

such type of drastic action in the facts and

circumstances of the case by canceling the registration

of the petitioner on such hyper technical ground will

not help the State rather it will cause revenue loss to

the State as well as aggravate unemployment problem

in the State which will be a social problem in the

society. The petitioner in support of his contention

has relied upon a decision of this court in WPA 11147

of 2020(International Value Retail Private Limited Vs.

Union of India & Ors.), reported in 2021(10) TMI 312-

Calcutta High Court.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and records available and submission of the

parties, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order

dated 16th April, 2021 and order of the Appellate

Authority dated 25th August, 2021 confirming the

cancellation of registration of the petitioner for

revocation of cancellation of its registration, by

directing the State respondent concerned to consider

afresh the case of the petitioner in the light of the

judgment of this court in the case of International

Value Retail Private Limited Vs. Union of India &

Ors.(supra) as well as the observation made in this

order and while re-considering the case of the

petitioner for revocation of cancellation of its

registration, the respondent concerned will make a

physical inspection of the premises in question upon

notice to the petitioner and give opportunity to the

petitioner to place all the documents to satisfy the

respondent concerned about the actual physical

possession of the petitioner at the premises in

question and the respondent concerned may verify the

existence of the petitioner at the premises in question

as well as carrying on business activity of the

petitioner from the premises in question from the local

people and take a final decision by not taking a hyper

technical view and pass a reasoned and speaking

order after giving opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner or its authorized representatives.

With these observation and direction this writ

petition, being WPA 16415 of 2021 is disposed of.

( Md. Nizamuddin, J. )