Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S Paramhansa Projects vs The State Of West Bengal Ors on 6 August, 2024
Form No.J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury
WPA 15089 of 2024
M/s Paramhansa Projects
Versus
The State of West Bengal Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Siddhartha Dasgupta
Mr. Souvik Guha
For the State : Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. GP
Mr. T. M. Siddiqui
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Mr. D. Sahu
Heard on : 6th August, 2024
Judgment on : 6th August, 2024.
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:
1. The present writ application has been filed, inter alia,
challenging the order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner
under the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
(Hereinafter referred to as the "said Act").
2. It is the petitioner's case that on or about 30th November, 2022,
the petitioner was served with a notice of show cause as to why the
registration of the petitioner under the said Act shall not be cancelled
2
for the petitioner having failed to file its returns for a continuous period
of six months.
3. Mr. Dasgupta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was and is all along interested to comply
with the provisions of the said Act, unfortunately by reasons of its
failure to file response the aforesaid fact could not be brought to the
notice of respondents.
4. By placing reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court delivered in the case of Subhakar Golder versus
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Serampore Charge (MAT
639 of 2024) on 9th April 2024, it is submitted that in similar
circumstances, similar order of cancellation of registration had been
set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner files returns for
the entire period of default, pays requisite amount of tax and interest
and fine and penalty. He submits that this Court may be pleased to set
aside the order of cancellation and allow the petitioner to file its
returns on the same terms.
5. Mr. Siddiqui, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State
respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioner had not
complied with the statutory provisions and it is for such reason, the
registration of the petitioner under the said Act was cancelled.
6. According the respondent authorities the petitioner was given
opportunity to show cause. Since, no reply to the show cause was
given by the petitioner, the authorities had cancelled the registration.
There is no irregularity on the part of the authorities in cancelling the
registration.
7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties
and considered the materials on record.
8. Admittedly, I find 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 be able to
carry on its business in the sense that no invoice can be raised by the
petitioner and ultimately would impact recovery of tax, I am of the view
that the respondents should take a pragmatic view in the matter and
permit the petitioner to carry on its business.
9. I find from the submissions made by the respondents that
unless, the petitioner files its returns, the respondents cannot
determine the final liability.
10. Having regard to the aforesaid and taking note of the direction
issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Subhankar Golder (supra), I propose to set aside the order dated 15th
December, 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.
11. It is made clear that if the petitioner complies with the
directions/conditions noted above, within 4 weeks from the date of
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 directions as
aforesaid, the benefit of this order will not enure to the petitioner and
the writ petition would stand automatically dismissed.
12. For the purpose of compliance of the above directions, the
respondents are directed to activate the portal within one week from
date, so that the petitioner can file its returns, pays requisite amount
of tax, interest, fine and penalty.
13. With the above direction and observations, the writ petition is
disposed of without any order as to costs.
14. All parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly
downloaded from this Hon'ble Court's official website.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
made available to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
sb.
