GST Registration Cancellation Unsustainable When Hearing & Decision Were Made By Different Authorities: Calcutta High Court

Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that, interestingly, while the notice for personal hearing was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Burrabazar Division, but the order impugned has been passed by the Superintendent. The order therefore defies the very well-settled principle that an order must be passed by the authority that hears the parties or that one who hears must decide.

In the case at hand, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee/petitioner for cancellation of GST registration. The assessee replied to the show cause notice, but despite such a reply, the department did not conclude the proceedings.

The assessee had filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging the show cause notice.

The petition was disposed of, thereby directing the department to dispose of the matter upon giving an effective hearing to the assessee. Thereafter, despite providing a personal hearing to the assessee, the matter was still pending as no order was passed.

The assessee again approach Calcutta High Court, complaining of an act of contempt of the earlier order. The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise to conclude the proceedings.

Thereafter, an order was passed by the Superintendent in which the assessee's registration was cancelled by invoking the provisions of Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017.

The counsel for the assessee argued that the hearing notice was given to the assessee by the Assistant Commissioner, Burrabazar Division, CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate. However, despite the direction of the Court on the said authority to conclude the proceeding and to communicate the outcome thereof, the order has been passed by the Superintendent.

The bench found that the order thus does not disclose any reason for the conclusion reached by the ordering authority. It is now well settled that reasons are the live-links between the narrative and directive, and the absence of reasons would make the order a nullity.

The bench opined that since the order is palpably bad, no purpose would be served by affording the petitioner a post-decisional hearing. Post-decisional hearing is not to be ordinarily directed by Courts, and it is not at all meant for cases like the one at hand, where a final order has been passed without any application of mind and without recording any reason. It is well settled that post-decisional hearing does not subserve the rules of natural justice.

In view of the above, the bench set aside the impugned order and directed the adjudicating authority to dispose of the matter within four weeks.

Case Title: S.K.M. Timber Private Limited v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Burrabazar Division, Kolkata North CGST & CX Commissionerate and others

Case Number: WPA 11034 of 2025

Counsel for Petitioner/Assessee: Sanjay Bhaumik, Sourav Chander Nilanjan Bhattacharya

Counsel for Respondent/Department: Shiv Sankar Banerjee, Bijitesh Mukherjee

2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 1