^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

SUBHOLAXMI RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. SUPERINTENDENT, COOCH BEHAR I RANGE & ANOTHER
(Calcutta High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

Pet. Counsel

Matan Chakraborty.

Res. Counsel

Ratan Banik

Biswaraj Agarwal

Petitioner / Applicant	SUBHOLAXMI RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED
Respondent	SUPERINTENDENT, COOCH BEHAR I RANGE & ANOTHER
Court	Calcutta High Court
State	West Bengal
Date	Apr 23, 2024
Order No.	WPA 845 of 2024
Citation	2024(4) TAXREPLY 9652
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
1. The present writ application has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner under the WBGST Act, 2017, effected vide notice dated 17th March 2021. 2. It is the petitioner’s case that originally a show cause notice for cancellation of registration of the certificate issued under the WBGST Act was issued on 30th April 2020. The same was served on the petitioner vide an e-mail communication. The ground for issuance of show cause was the failure on the part of the petitioner to file its returns for six months. 3. Ms. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that although, by reasons of the pandemic, the petitioner could not file its response, the respondent no. 1 had purportedly effected the order of cancellation on 17th March 2021. The order of cancellation was issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that from the aforesaid communi....