Case Summary
Case Title: Shree Balaji Polycon & Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (GST), Howrah & Kadamtala Charge & Ors.
Court: Calcutta High Court
Petition No.: WPA 16796 of 2024 with CAN 2 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 11 July 2025
Category: Registration Cancellation / Revocation under GST
Relevant Sections: Section 29, Section 30, Section 107 of CGST/WBGST Act, 2017; Rule 25 of CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017
Facts
The petitioner’s registration was cancelled on 17 February 2023 on allegations of fraud, willful misstatement, and suppression of facts. Their application for revocation was rejected on 15 May 2023, and appeal under Section 107 was dismissed on 21 May 2024. The petitioners contended that they had a valid lease agreement for their business premises dated 30 August 2022 and supporting documents, but the authorities failed to appreciate these. The High Court had earlier directed fresh verification of the premises under Rule 25, leading to further reports (Paras 1–3).
Questions in Dispute
-
Whether cancellation of GST registration was justified when the petitioner’s business premises were found to exist during physical verification.
-
Whether denial of revocation and rejection of appeal under Section 107 could survive in view of subsequent verification.
Observations
The Court noted with concern that the State had filed only a photocopy of the verification report in a casual manner (Para 4). However, from the contents of the report dated 25 February 2025, it was clear that the petitioner’s business premises existed at the notified address. The initial cancellation was triggered merely because verification on 4 January 2023 failed to establish activity. Since later verification confirmed existence, the cancellation was unsustainable (Paras 5–6).
Judgment
The Court held that continuation of cancellation was impermissible once the business existence was established. Orders of cancellation dated 17 February 2023, rejection of revocation (15 May 2023), and rejection of appeal (21 May 2024) were all set aside. The jurisdictional officer was directed to restore registration on the GST portal. Petitioners were directed to file pending returns and pay due tax, interest, fine, and penalty within four weeks of reactivation (Paras 6–8).
Table of Cases Referred
| Case | Citation | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Shree Balaji Polycon & Ors. (current case) | WPA 16796 of 2024 | Cancellation quashed; registration to be restored after compliance with filing and payments |
(No external precedents cited in the judgment itself.)
Between Fine Lines
This judgment emphasizes that GST registration cancellation cannot be sustained merely because earlier verification was inconclusive. Where subsequent inspection confirms business existence, authorities must restore registration. For trade, this means that genuine businesses wrongly cancelled for procedural lapses have strong grounds to seek restoration through the Courts.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
