Kala Imaging World VS The Superintendent, CGST

The case of Kala Imaging World vs. The Superintendent, CGST revolves around the petitioner, who is an assessee to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) under the jurisdiction of the first respondent. The petitioner applied to cancel their GST registration because they intended to transfer their business to a third party. However, they mistakenly cited the reason for cancellation as ‘discontinuance of business/closure of business’ instead of the correct reason, which should have been ‘transfer of business due to amalgamation, merger, demerger, sales, lease, or otherwise’.

Upon realizing the error, the petitioner promptly contacted the first respondent to rectify the mistake and change the reason for cancellation. However, they were informed that such a change could not be made as the cancellation had already been processed.

The petitioner then approached the court through a writ petition, challenging the communication from the respondent regarding the inability to change the reason for cancellation.

In response, the respondents, through a statement, cited Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, stating that revocation of cancellation is only possible when the proper officer cancels the registration on their own motion. They argued that revocation is not provided for when the cancellation is initiated by the party itself, even if the reason cited was incorrect.

The respondents suggested that the petitioner should file a fresh request to revoke the cancellation and restore the GST identification number (GSTIN) that was cancelled due to the incorrect reason. They could then proceed to cancel the GSTIN again with the correct reason.

The case essentially revolves around the procedural issue of whether the petitioner can rectify the mistake in the reason for cancellation after the cancellation has already been processed by the authorities.

The case of Kala Imaging World versus The Superintendent, CGST revolves around an error in the cancellation of GST registration by the petitioner, an assessee under GST. The petitioner had applied for cancellation of registration intending to transfer their business to a third party. However, due to an inadvertent mistake, they cited “discontinuance of business/closure of business” as the reason for cancellation instead of the correct reason, which was the transfer of business.

Upon realizing the mistake, the petitioner promptly contacted the tax authorities to rectify the error. However, they were informed that the system did not allow for changing the reason for cancellation after the cancellation order had been passed. Dissatisfied with this response, the petitioner approached the court through a writ petition challenging the decision of the tax authorities.

The respondents argued that under Section 30 of the CGST Act, revocation of cancellation is only possible when the proper officer cancels the registration on their own motion, and it is not provided for when the party themselves apply for cancellation under Section 29 citing a wrong reason.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the court concluded that the original cancellation of registration citing closure/discontinuance of business was erroneous. It was evident that the petitioner had immediately sought to correct the mistake upon receiving the cancellation order. The court held that the tax authorities cannot plead helplessness in rectifying such a mistake made during the application process.

Therefore, the court ordered the tax authorities to change the reason for cancellation to “transfer of business on account of amalgamation, merger, demerger, sales, lease, or otherwise” and issue a fresh cancellation order accordingly. The court also quashed the previous communication from the tax authorities and directed them to adopt a suitable procedure to issue the fresh cancellation order within a specified period.

In the case of Kala Imaging World vs. The Superintendent, CGST, the petitioner, an assessee to GST, sought to cancel their registration under the GST regime due to transferring their business to a third party. However, in their application for cancellation, they mistakenly cited the reason as ‘discontinuance of business/closure of business’ instead of the correct reason, which was the transfer of business due to amalgamation, merger, demerger, sales, lease, or otherwise.

Upon realizing the error, the petitioner contacted the authorities to rectify the mistake, but was informed that the system couldn’t accommodate such changes once the registration had been canceled. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this decision.

The respondents argued that under Section 30 of the CGST Act, revocation of registration is only possible if the proper officer cancels it on their own motion, and not when the party applies for cancellation themselves, even if citing a wrong reason.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the court found that the original cancellation of registration based on the reason of closure/discontinuance of business was erroneous due to the petitioner’s mistake. It was noted that the petitioner promptly sought to correct the error after receiving the cancellation order, rather than changing their mind later.

The court held that the respondent couldn’t plead helplessness in correcting such an apparent mistake made during the application process. Therefore, it directed the respondent to change the reason for cancellation to ‘transfer of business on account of amalgamation, merger, demerger, sales, lease, or otherwise’ and issue a fresh cancellation order accordingly. The previous order was quashed, and the respondent was instructed to issue the fresh order within one month from the date of the judgment.

Upon receiving the new cancellation order, the petitioner was allowed to apply for the transfer of accumulated input tax credit to the new business entity to which their business was transferred.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the above directions

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law: