The court reaffirmed that procedural non-compliance leading to cancellation of GST registration can be remedied, emphasizing substantive justice over technicalities.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.

Facts:

1. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned cancellation of GST registration dated March 30, 2023, Annexure-P3 at page 14 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 your reply dated 14/02/2023 in response to the notice to show cause dated 13/01/2023. Whereas the undersigned has examined your reply and submissions made at the time of hearing, and is of the opinion that your registration is liable to be cancelled for following reasons.

1. The taxpayer neither respond to the query nor filed pending returns. Hence the registration hereby cancelled under sec 29(2) of CGST, Act 2017. However, liability, if any will be assessed and recovered under sec 29(3) of CGST Act, 2017.

The effective date of cancellation of your registration is 13/01/2023 Determination of amount payable pursuant to cancellation:

Accordingly, the amount payable by you and the computation and basis thereof is as follows :

The amounts determined as being payable above are without prejudice to any amount that may be found to be payable you on submission of final return furnished by you.

You are required to pay the following amounts on or before failing which the amount will be recovered in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder.

Place : COOCHBEHAR DIVISION

Date : 30/03/2023”

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. Ronit Kumar Jha, 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. Jha 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. Jha 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 t