Joydeb Karmakar @ Jaydeb Karmakar v. The Union of India & Ors

What happened

On 11 February 2025 the CGST authorities asked the petitioner to clarify multiple GST registrations taken under a single bank account, and he did not reply. A show-cause notice of 7 March 2025 proposed cancellation under rule 21(d) for violation of rule 10A by not disclosing bank details, and the registration was cancelled on 16 June 2025. The petitioner had been arrested on 7 March 2025, the date of the notice, remained in custody until he was released on bail on 17 November 2025, and was acquitted on 3 January 2026; he took no step to challenge the cancellation. He said that the position arose from his separation from his brother and his failure to update the record.

Questions before the court

• Should the cancellation of the registration be set aside although the petitioner did not appeal and approached the Court late?

Why the court ruled this way

The authorities objected on grounds of conduct, delay and failure to use the alternative remedy. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for a considerable period but that no steps were taken for revocation even after his release (paragraph 6). It also noted that cancellation of GST registration has severe civil consequences by completely disabling a dealer from carrying on business, that the object of GST law is compliance and not punishment, and that where an assessee shows a bona fide willingness to file returns and pay the outstanding dues with interest and penalty, a liberal and pragmatic approach is warranted, as in Kanaklal Sutradhar and Basudeb Karmakar. The respondents did not allege fraud, fake invoices or circular trading, and the allegation was confined to non-disclosure of bank details and multiple registrations on a joint account, which can be cured by producing the correct bank details and documents (paragraphs 7 and 8).

Controlling point

A failure to furnish bank details under Rule 10A is a curable lapse, and a cancellation with severe civil consequences may be reversed on production of genuine account documents and compliance with return and payment obligations.

Order and next steps

The petitioner must file a detailed representation to respondent no. 1 within seven days with his bank details and documents, and the officer must dispose of it by a reasoned and speaking order within three weeks after a personal hearing, communicating it within a week. If the petitioner satisfies the officer of his bona fides, the registration is to be restored on the furnishing of all returns for the entire period of default and payment of all outstanding tax, interest, late fees, fines and penalties, and the portal activated within a week. The cancellation order of 16 June 2025 was quashed subject to these compliances, and if the petitioner fails to comply the benefit of the order does not enure to him. He must not seek adjournments and must give his e-mail address for notices.

Practical implications

A registered person whose registration is cancelled for lapses such as non-disclosure of bank details should move promptly, with the correct bank documents and a willingness to file all pending returns and pay dues. The High Court may give one opportunity, but delay and failure to appeal count against the petitioner.

Limits of this ruling

• The Court disposed of the writ without examining the merits of the allegation, and the relief depends on the petitioner's compliance with the conditions.