The Calcutta High Court has directed the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to activate the petitioner’s GST portal within four weeks. The Court also stayed the effect of a January 17, 2025 order against the petitioner, by allowing time to make the mandatory pre-deposit required for pursuing an appeal.
The bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury has observed that keeping the writ petition pending would serve no useful purpose. It accordingly directed GSTN to activate the petitioner’s portal within four weeks.
The petitioner had approached the Court after finding their GST portal marked as “inactive,” despite holding a valid registration under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. Due to the inactive status, the taxpayer was unable to make the statutory pre-deposit necessary for validating an appeal against a tax demand order concerning the period from April 2020 to March 2021 under Section 74 of the Act.
The petitioner submitted that although the appeal was filed offline as a last resort, it could not be validated in the absence of the mandatory pre-deposit, which can only be paid through the GST portal. The situation, she argued, left the petitioner with no option but to seek judicial intervention.
The department confirmed that the petitioner’s GST registration had not been cancelled but was presently “inactive.” Earlier, on September 15, 2025, the Court noted that GSTN was a necessary party in the matter and accordingly impleaded it. Advocate Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree appeared for GSTN but submitted that she was still awaiting instructions.
The Court also granted interim protection by staying the effect of the January 17, 2025 order for six weeks, or two weeks beyond the activation of the portal, whichever is later. However, the Court clarified that the injunction would not continue beyond the end of November 2025.
Once the GST portal is reactivated, the petitioner will be required to deposit the mandatory pre-deposit, following which the appeal will be regularized and heard on merits.
The court disposed of the writ petition without any order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Ashirvad Food Products Private Limited Vs. Additional/Joint Commissioner
Case No.: WPA 12105 of 2025
Date: 26.09.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: K. Roy, Sreeja Mukherjee
Counsel For Respondent: Tanoy Chakraborty, Saptak Sanyal
