Anand Prasad G S T I N vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate Dehradun

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should file an application for revocation under Section 30 of the GST Act in terms of Rule 23 of the GST Rules. While acknowledging that the application would be time-barred, the Court was inclined to waive the limitation period and directed the petitioner to file the application for revocation within 21 days. The petitioner was also directed to comply with other provisions of Section 30, including submitting returns for the defaulted six months and any subsequent completed months. The Court further stipulated that if any dues are found and paid by the petitioner, the revenue should consider the case liberally and dispose of the application within 15 days. This order was necessitated due to the livelihood of numerous individuals working with the petitioner's company being at stake, referencing the principle that the right to livelihood stems from the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Anand Prasad, engaged in civil contractor services, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by the respondent authorities on February 28, 2022. The petitioner sought to quash this order and requested permission to file an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay any outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. The revenue contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, subject to filing returns for the six months of default as per Rule 23 of the Uttarakhand GST Rules, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to file an application for revocation of GST registration cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, despite the application being time-barred, considering the potential impact on livelihood? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 23 of the Uttarakhand GST Rules, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are ready to pay all dues and sought a direction to prefer an application for revocation, relying on the principle that denial of GST registration affects livelihood, which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, as observed in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022. Revenue's contention: The revenue submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, requiring the petitioner to file returns for the six months of default as per Rule 23 of the Uttarakhand GST Rules, 2017.