10.04.2025 sayandeep Sl. No.07 Ct. No. 05 WPA 3783 of 2025 Novous Interiors Private Limited Vs. Union of India & ors. Mr. Promit Majumdar …. for the petitioner Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee Mr. Tapan Bhanja Ms. Kankana Chakraborty …… for the CGST 1. The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record. 2. Challenging the order of cancellation dated 26th September, 2023 cancelling the petitioner’s registration under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) and the appellate order dated 30th October, 2024 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of he said Act rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation, the present writ petition has been filed. Records would reveal that a show-cause notice was issued upon the petitioner on 5th July, 2023 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the registration of the petitioner under the said Act shall not be cancelled for failing to furnish returns under Section 39 of the said Act for a continuous period of six months. Records would further reveal that the petitioner did not respond to the said show cause and an order of cancellation was passed. The petitioner did not file any application for revocation of the order of cancellation as well. Instead had directly filed an appeal before the appellate authority which appears to have been rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. 2 3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner all along was interested to comply with the provisions of the said Act. However, for reasons beyond the petitioner’s control, the return could not be filed in time. He submits that the petitioner undertakes that in the event, petitioner’s registration is restored, the petitioner shall not only make payment of the arrear tax but file returns along with fine, interest and penalty as may be found due and payable by the respondents. 4. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents would however, submit that the order passed by the appellate authority cannot be faulted. Admittedly, in this case the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and having regard thereto, the appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeal. 5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the materials on record and without going into the issue as regards the correctness of the order passed by the appellate authority, I am of the view that taking note of the submissions made by the petitioner and the fact that suspension/revocation of the license would be counterproductive and works against the interest of revenue, since in such case, the petitioner would not be able to carry on its business in a sense that no invoice can be raised by the petitioner and the same would ultimately impact the recovery of tax and as such it would be in the best interest of the respondents to take a pragmatic view in the matter so as to permit the petitioner to carry on its business. 6. Having regard to the above and taking note of the undertaking given by the petitioner, I propose to set aside the order of cancellation of registration dated 26th September, 2023 under the said Act, subject to 3 the condition that the petitioner files its returns for the entire period of default, pays requisite amount of tax, interest, fine and penalty, if not already paid. 7. It is made clear that if the petitioner complies with the above directions/conditions noted above within a period of six weeks from the date receipt of the server copy of this order, the petitioner’s registration under the said Act shall be restored by the jurisdictional officer. However, if the petitioner fails to comply with the above direction, the benefit of this order will not enure to the petitioner and the writ petition shall automatically stand dismissed. 8. For the purpose of compliance of the above direction, the jurisdictional officer is directed to activate the portal within seven working days from the date of communication of this order so that the petitioner can file its return, pay requisite amount of tax, interest, fine and penalty, if not already paid. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 10. Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)