Tax Registration Dispute Resolved: Appeal Granted, Fresh Review Ordered with Document Submission Opportunity and No Coercive Action

HC allowed appeal challenging tax registration cancellation. RTP's non-appearance was disputed, with evidence of prior document submission. Court directed fresh consideration by tax authority, mandating appellant submit documents within two weeks. No coercive action permitted pending final order. Matter remanded for comprehensive review without prejudicing appellant's rights.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge against order under Section 74(9) of WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 - Appellable order - Non-appearance of Registered Tax Prayer (RTP) - Submission of documents - Cancellation of registration - Granting opportunity to submit documents - Disposal of appeal and writ petition - Fresh consideration by concerned authority - No coercive action.

Analysis:

The High Court of Calcutta heard an intra court appeal challenging an order passed under Section 74(9) of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. The appellant sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari to cancel the order dated 23.03.2022. The learned Single Judge considered the order as appellable and directed the filing of an affidavit-in-opposition, imposing a condition for the appellant to deposit 10% of the demand to avoid coercive action. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant appealed to the High Court.

Upon examining the impugned order, the Court noted that the Registered Tax Prayer (RTP) did not appear or file any reply to the intimation. However, the appellant's counsel argued that the conclusion was factually incorrect, referring to a letter dated 17.09.2021 where the appellant had authorized a representative to submit necessary documents. Acknowledgment of this letter by the State Commissioner's office was also highlighted.

The Court decided not to delve into the controversy of document submission, granting the appellant another opportunity to submit all relevant documents. It opined that canceling the registration was unjustified and allowing the submission of documents would protect the appellant's interests and aid revenue recovery. Consequently, the Court directed the appellant to treat the order as an additional show cause notice and submit a reply with relevant documents within two weeks.

The Court disposed of the appeal and writ petition with a common order, remanding the matter back for fresh consideration by the concerned authority. It emphasized that no coercive action should be taken against the appellant until final orders are passed, allowing the appellant to present all factual and legal grounds before the authority. The connected application to the appeal was also disposed of, with no costs imposed.

---