Procedural non-compliance should not bar the substantive rights of a GST registrant, and cancellation of registration can be quashed if it hampers the ability to conduct business.

JUDGMENT :

Aniruddha Roy, J.

Facts :

1. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned cancellation of GST registration dated May 27, 2024, Annexure-P3 at page 18 to the writ petition. The observation of the GST authority from the said impugned order is quoted below :

“Order for Cancellation of Registration

This has reference to show cause dated 13/01/2023.

The effective date of cancellation of your registration is 27/05/2024.

3. It may be noted that a registered person furnishing return under the sub-section (1) of section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017 is required to furnish a final return in FORM GSTR-10 within three months of the date of this order.

4. You are required to furnish all your pending returns.

5. It may be noted that the cancellation of registration shall not affect the liability to pay tax and other dues under this Act or to discharge any obligation under this Act or the rules made thereunder for any period prior to the date of cancellation whether or not such tax and other dues are determined before or after the date of cancellation.”

Place : Malbazar Range

Date : 27/5/2024”

2. From the observations made in the impugned order, it appears that initially there was a show cause notice issued upon the petitioner and no reply was submitted by the petitioner in response to the said show cause notice. The observations further show that there were certain procedural irregularities on the part of the petitioner for which the GST registration was cancelled.

3. Mr. Satyam Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his usual fairness submits that there is an appellate provision under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, the said 2017 Act.). No appeal has been preferred.

4. With the passage of time, the statutory period of preferring the appeal stands expired including the grace period as provided under the statute.

5. The petitioner applied for revocation of cancellation of the registration certificate on August 18, 2025. The petitioner has also filed the due returns till the date of cancellation of registration. The application was not accepted by the revenue authority, submitted on the portal.

6. Mr. Sarkar further submits that unless the said GST registration is restored, the petitioner will not be able to carry on his business and as a result shall suffer immense prejudice and shall be deprived of his livelihood. He further submits that the petitioner is agreeable to comply with all the procedural requirements which are necessary for restoration of the GST registration.

7. Mr. Sarkar further submits that in the event the GST registration is restored after making necessary statutory payments and if thereafter the petitioner is allowed to carry on the business, it would generate further revenue out of which the petitioner will also be able to pay the revenue authority the necessary levies in due process of law and ultimately the revenue authority shall be benefitted and the State will earn the exchequers. By keeping this GST registration cancelled, the revenue authority will not earn any benefit.

8. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the following decisions:

(i) The decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench dated April 9, 2024, In the matter of: Subhankar Golder –vs- Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. Serampore Charge & Ors. rendered in MAT 639 of 2024 and

(ii) a decision of the coordinate bench dated July 29, 2025, In the matter of : Marjina Khatun C/o. Anarun Islam Sarkar –vs- Union of India & Ors. rendered in WPA 1542 of 2025.

9. In the light of the above, Mr. Sarkar prays for