Non-disclosure of bank details, absent fraud, warrants an opportunity to cure before GST registration cancellation.

The petitioner’s GST registration under the WBGST Act, 2017 and the CGST Act, 2017 was cancelled by the Superintendent, Balurghat Range, by order dated 16 June 2025, on the ground of non-submission of bank details and alleged violation of Rule 10A read with Rule 21(d) of the applicable GST Rules.

The authorities had earlier sought clarification regarding multiple GST registrations allegedly linked to a single joint bank account, but the petitioner did not respond.

The petitioner contended that the bank account initially disclosed was held jointly with his elder brother and that, after their separation and opening of separate accounts, the relevant changes were not communicated to the GST authorities.

The petitioner was arrested on 7 March 2025, remained in custody until being enlarged on bail on 17 November 2025, and was subsequently acquitted on 3 January 2026.

He did not file an application for revocation or pursue an appellate remedy after his release, and the authorities opposed the writ petition on the grounds of delay, laches and availability of an alternative remedy.

The petitioner expressed willingness to furnish the correct bank details, file all pending returns and pay outstanding tax, interest, late fees, fines and penalties.

Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to establish the bona fides of the alleged non-disclosure of bank details and multiple registrations before the cancellation of his GST registration is sustained.

Whether the cancellation of GST registration ought to be interfered with despite the petitioner’s delay, failure to pursue the statutory remedy and non-compliance with the authorities’ earlier notice.

Whether restoration of the registration could be made conditional upon production of valid bank documents, filing of returns for the entire default period and payment of tax, interest, late fees, fines and penalties.

The Court applied Rule 10A and Rule 21(d) of the GST Rules, under which a registered taxpayer is required to furnish bank-account details and registration may be cancelled for non-compliance.

It also considered the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST enactments.

The Court relied on Kanaklal Sutradhar v. State of West Bengal, (2024) 165 Taxmann.com 468 (Calcutta), where cancellation was set aside subject to filing returns and payment of tax, interest, late fees, fines and penalties, and on Subhankar Golder v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, MAT 639 of 2024, decided on 9 April 2024, which adopted a compliance-oriented approach to restoration of GST registration.

It also relied on Basudeb Karmakar v. Superintendent of CGST and CX, WPA 13801 of 2026, for the principle that cancellation of GST registration has severe civil consequences and therefore requires a liberal and pragmatic approach.

The governing principle was that GST law is intended primarily to secure compliance rather than impose disproportionate punishment, particularly where the lapse is curable and there is no allegation of tax fraud, fake invoicing, circular trading or tax evasion.

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had failed to respond to the clarification and show-cause notice and had not promptly pursued revocation or an appeal after his release from custody.

Nevertheless, the alleged violation was confined to non-disclosure of bank details and the use of a joint bank account in circumstances allegedly arising from the petitioner’s separation from his brother; there was no allegation of fraudulent transactions, fake invoices, circular trading or deliberate evasion of tax.

Since cancellation of registration effectively prevents the petitioner from carrying on business and has serious civil consequences, the Court considered that the defect could potentially be cured by producing correct bank details and supporting documents.

Applying the compliance-oriented approach in Kanaklal Sutradhar and Basudeb Karmakar, the Court held that the petitioner should receive one opportunity to establish his bona fides, subject to strict procedural and financial conditions.

The petitioner was directed to submit, within seven days, a comprehensive representation to the concerned authority explaining the alleged multiple registrations and enclosing the relevant bank details and supporting documents.

The authority was directed to provide a personal hearing, pass a reasoned and speaking order within three weeks of receiving the representation, and communicate the decision within the following week.

If the petitioner established his bona fides, the authority was directed to restore the registration upon the petitioner’s filing of returns for the entire default period and payment of all outstanding tax, interest, late fees, fines and penalties.

The portal and login credentials were to be activated, if appropriate, to enable compliance.

Failure to comply with the directions would disentitle the petitioner from the benefit of the order.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without adjudicating the merits of the underlying allegations.