Avdhut Printers Through Its Prop Akshay Bharat Gavkar vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Commissioner Of CGST And Others

Held

The Court held that the provisions of the GST enactment should not be interpreted to deny a citizen the right to carry on trade and commerce, which is a constitutional guarantee. The Court referred to a previous decision in Rohit Enterprises V./s. The Commissioner State GST, 2023 (2) TMI-759 Bom HC, which allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of registration on grounds of limitation. The Court reasoned that while the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax may not have the power to condone delay beyond 30 days, the objective of limitation provisions is to terminate litigation, not to divest a person of their rights. The Court further stated that in matters of cancellation of registration, the question of limitation should not be a bar, as no right has accrued to the State that would be adversely affected. The Court also cited the Supreme Court's observation in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be restricted by the provisions of any Act. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the GST registration was held valid from 05.12.2020, subject to the petitioner filing up-to-date returns and clearing all pending dues with interest, penalty, and late fees.

Facts

The petitioner, Avdhut Printers, through its proprietor Akshay Bharat Gavkar, filed a writ petition challenging two orders: one dated 18.12.2025 passed by respondent no.3 and another dated 16.07.2024 passed by respondent no.2. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and direct the respondents to revoke the cancellation of its GST Registration No.27BZKPG7301J1ZA. The petitioner argued that its case was covered by a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench of the High Court. The respondents opposed the petition, contending that respondent no.3 lacked the authority to condone delays beyond 30 days.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct the revocation of GST registration cancellation despite the appeal being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 107 of the MGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that its case is squarely covered by a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench of the High Court, which allowed a similar writ petition. They relied on the principle that the constitutional guarantee to carry on trade and commerce under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed. Revenue's contention: The respondents argued that respondent no.3 (presumably the appellate authority) has no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days, and therefore, the petition lacks merit.