AVIJIT SAHA vs THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE AND ORS

15
02.09.2026
sb
Ct.9.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

WPA 1927 of 2026

Avijit Saha
Versus
The Superintendent Central Goods
& Services Tax and Central Excise
Range –III Siliguri Division & Ors.

Mr. Diganta Ghosh
… For the petitioner.

Mr. Dilip Kumar Agarwal
Mr. Biswaraj Agarwal
… For the respondent.



1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained
with the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia,
challenging the order of cancellation of registration of the
petitioner under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017.
th
3. It is the petitioner’s case that on 12 February,
2025 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 for the petitioner
having failed to furnish his returns for a continuous
period of six months.
4. Mr. Ghosh, 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 by
filing his returns. Unfortunately, such fact could not be
brought to the notice of the respondents, as no reply to

2
WPA 1927 of 2026

the show cause was filed. He submits that the petitioner
is ready and willing to comply with the provisions of the
said Act.
5. 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 file
its returns.
6. Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate for the 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.

7. According to 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.
8. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and considered the materials on record.

3
WPA 1927 of 2026

9. 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 his business in the sense that no invoices
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.
10. I find from the submissions made by the
respondents that unless, the petitioner files its returns,
the respondents cannot determine the final liability.
11. 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
th
to set aside the order dated 17 June, 2025 cancelling
the registration of the petitioner subject to the condition
that the petitioner files its returns for the entire period of
default and pays requisite amount of tax and interest and
fine and penalty.
12. 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

4
WPA 1927 of 2026

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.
13. For the purpose of compliance of the above
directions, the respondent are directed to activate the
petitioner’s portal and login credentials within one week
from the date so that the petitioner can file its returns,
pays requisite amount of tax and interest and fine and
penalty.
th
14. As a sequel thereto the appellate order dated 17
April, 2026 also stands set aside.
15. With the above observations and directions, the
writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs.
16. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy
of this order duly downloaded from the official website of
this Court.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)