Poonamchand Saran vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, Poonamchand Saran and Mohan Singh, were registered dealers under the GST Act. Their GST registrations were cancelled by the competent authority via orders dated September 9, 2022, and May 9, 2022, respectively. While Poonamchand Saran filed an e-appeal within the stipulated thirty-day period, he failed to submit the hard copy. Mohan Singh did not file an appeal against the cancellation order. Poonamchand Saran's appeal was dismissed as time-barred. Mohan Singh sought to file an appeal due to unavoidable reasons. Both petitioners challenged the orders of cancellation and dismissal of appeal, arguing they were left remediless due to hyper-technical reasons, impacting their livelihood and violating Article 21 of the Constitution.

Held

The Court held that the petitioners would be unable to continue their business without GST registration, leading to a deprivation of their livelihood, which constitutes a violation of their right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court found that the legal propositions expounded in the judgments relied upon by the petitioners covered the controversy at hand. Consequently, the order dated September 9, 2022, passed in the case of Poonamchand Saran was set aside. Both petitioners were granted liberty to file appeals against the cancellation of their GST registrations with the competent authority within ten days from the date of the order. The Court directed that these appeals be considered and decided on all aspects in accordance with law, excluding the bar of limitation. The issue of whether the initial cancellation orders were justified on merits was not expressly decided, as the focus was on providing an opportunity to appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of Poonamchand Saran's appeal against GST registration cancellation solely on the ground of non-submission of the hard copy, despite timely e-filing, is legally sustainable, particularly in light of the potential violation of Article 21 of the Constitution? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural compliance under GST law). 2. Whether Mohan Singh should be granted an opportunity to file an appeal against the cancellation of his GST registration, considering his inability to file within the prescribed period due to unavoidable reasons, and the potential impact on his livelihood? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that they were deprived of their right to do business and earn a livelihood due to hyper-technical reasons for not filing appeals in the prescribed format or within the time limit. They contended that this situation violates their fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. They relied on judgments from various High Courts (M/s G.G. Agencies Girijeshwar Rice Mill, Vinod Kumar, TVL. Suguna Cutpiece Centre, M/s Trans India Carco Carriers) to support their plea for an opportunity to file appeals. They sought a direction for the competent authority to decide their appeals on merits. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent revenue department opposed the submissions. However, it could not dispute the legal propositions laid down in the judgments cited by the petitioners.