Swarupa Ghosh VS The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Bowbazar Charge

Mr. Sengupta, acting as the advocate for the appellant, has submitted a certified copy of the contested order from May 11, 2022. This document has been officially filed for reference. The appeal in question pertains to a ruling made on the same day in W.P.A. No. 7816 of 2022. In the initial order, the appellant’s writ petition, which aimed to challenge the rejection of a revocation application dated March 21, 2022, along with previous proceedings, was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the reasoning that an appellate remedy is available under the relevant Act. Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant has pursued an appeal, leading to the current proceedings.

The legal proceedings involved Mr. Saurabh Sankar Sengupta representing the appellant and Mr. Debasish Ghosh representing the State. The case began in August 2021 with the issuance of a show cause notice proposing the cancellation of registration due to an alleged violation of Section 29(12)(a) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Following the appellant’s response, the registration was cancelled on September 1, 2021, reportedly without providing reasons. The appellant then filed for revocation, leading to the restoration of registration on November 3, 2021. However, considering a proposed relocation of business, the appellant applied for cancellation of registration on the same day.

The department requested various documents, but on November 25, 2021, the authority rejected the cancellation application due to non-submission of the balance sheet and profit and loss account as required. Simultaneously, a second notice was issued on the same date.

In the case at hand, Mr. Sengupta, acting as the appellant’s advocate, has submitted a detailed summary of the contested order dated May 11, 2022. This order, the subject of an intra-court appeal, pertains to a previous decision made in W.P.A. No.7816 of 2022. The essence of the order was the dismissal of the appellant’s writ petition, which sought to challenge the rejection of their revocation application from March 21, 2022, along with preceding proceedings. The dismissal was grounded on the availability of an appellate remedy under the relevant Act. Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant has brought forth this appeal.

The root of the matter revolves around the cancellation of the appellant’s registration, purportedly due to allegations of fraud and deliberate misrepresentation or concealment of facts. However, notably, no adverse report was attached to the show cause notice that initiated this cancellation process.

Upon receipt of this notice, the appellant promptly responded on December 2, 2021, requesting the necessary documentation to formulate a comprehensive rebuttal. Subsequently, on the same date, written submissions were furnished echoing this demand. Despite the appellant’s diligence, when the scheduled hearing convened on December 7, 2021, the authority failed to furnish any documents but inexplicably terminated the proceedings regarding registration cancellation.

Subsequent to this development, the appellant made a second attempt to revoke the registration, prompting the authority to issue another show cause notice, seeking additional particulars. Responding to this notice, the appellant submitted further written arguments on December 13, 2021. Yet, by December 20, 2021, the registration was abruptly revoked.

This sequence of events underscores the appellant’s contention that their due process rights were compromised due to the lack of provision of essential documents and the seemingly arbitrary nature of the cancellation proceedings. These circumstances form the crux of the appellant’s appeal against the earlier order, as they seek redress for what they perceive as an unjust decision

The legal proceedings involving Mr. Saurabh Sankar Sengupta, representing the appellant, and Mr. Debasish Ghosh, representing the State, have undergone several phases since August 2021. The initial development occurred with a show cause notice issued on August 23, 2021, proposing the cancellation of registration under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This proposal was based on an alleged contravention of Section 29(12)(a) of the Act. The appellant responded to this notice, but a cancellation order devoid of reasons was issued on September 1, 2021. Subsequently, the appellant applied for revocation of this order, resulting in the restoration of registration on November 3, 2021.

During this period, the appellant intended to relocate their business, prompting them to apply for cancellation of registration on November 3, 2021. However, this application was rejected on November 25, 2021, citing non-submission of required documents like the balance sheet and profit and loss account. On the same date, another notice for cancellation of registration was issued, allegedly during the midnight hours. Furthermore, on December 21, 2021, another midnight notice for cancellation was received, this time for contravention of Section 29(2)(a) of the Act.

The appellant raised concerns regarding the absence of an attached adverse report mentioned in one of the notices. Despite pointing out this discrepancy in a representation dated December 27, 2021, an adverse report was only received on December 28, 2021. Subsequently, the appellant requested time to submit a reply via email at 2:47 p.m. on the same day. However, without providing any opportunity for a response, the registration was cancelled on December 28, 2021.

Following this cancellation, the appellant filed an application for revocation on January 17, 2022. However, on February 16, 2022, a show cause notice was issued, prompting a detailed reply from the appellant on February 19, 2022. Despite this, the application for revocation was rejected by an order dated March 21, 2022. Thus, the legal proceedings have involved multiple instances of cancellation, revocation, and rejection, with the appellant facing challenges regarding procedural fairness and the adequacy of reasons provided for the cancellations.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: