GST Registration Cancelled as Authorities Unaware of Business’ Relocation: Calcutta HC Directs Reconsideration [Read Order]
The High Court directed the authorities to consider the revocation of the cancellation of petitioner’s GST registration, but maintained that such direction was not a mandate.
![GST Registration Cancelled as Authorities Unaware of Business’ Relocation: Calcutta HC Directs Reconsideration [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/01/08/2117817-gst-registration-cancelled-authorities-unaware-business.webp "GST Registration Cancelled as Authorities Unaware of Business’ Relocation: Calcutta HC Directs Reconsideration [Read Order]")
The Calcutta High Court recently directed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities to reconsider the revocation of a petitioner’s GST registration, after noting that the petitioner had shifted his place of business and the authorities failed to locate the registered business during inspection. Bhola Prasad Barui approached the High Court through the present writ challenging an order...
The Calcutta High Court recently directed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities to reconsider the revocation of a petitioner’s GST registration, after noting that the petitioner had shifted his place of business and the authorities failed to locate the registered business during inspection.
Bhola Prasad Barui approached the High Court through the present writ challenging an order dated August 26, 2025 by which the Proper Officer cancelled his GST registration on the ground that it had been “obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.”
The officials had perpetuated the cancellation solely on the basis of a physical inspection conducted during which the petitioner was not found at the declared place of business.
Bulbuli Basu, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the order of cancellation of GST registration was effectuated without considering the actual factual position and that the GST authorities should have conducted a fresh visit at the petitioner’s new place of business and restored the registration instead of cancelling the same.
Tanmoy Chakraborty, Saptak Sanyal and Debraj Sahu, appearing for the Revenue argued that the petitioner had an equally efficacious alternative statutory remedy under Section 30 of the GST Act which allowed for an application for revocation of cancellation before the Proper Officer, and as such the High Court was not to entertain the writ petition.
Justice Om Narayan Rai examined the submissions and the material on record and held that the case did not disclose any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The primary notion of argument that was acceded to by the Bench was that, since the petitioner had an equally efficacious alternative remedy under Section 30 of the GST Act, the writ court would not exercise its jurisdiction.
However, the Court took note that the petitioner had approached it within the condonable period for seeking revocation. Accordingly, the Bench directed that if the petitioner filed an application for revocation before the Proper Officer within one week from the date of this order, such application shall be treated as filed within time and decided on its merits by the Revenue.
Importantly, the Court directed that the application be considered on its merits after providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity of hearing; however, Justice Rai clarified that the order shall not be construed as a mandate to restore registration, leaving the Proper Officer free to decide independently in accordance with law.
The matter was accordingly disposed of.
