M/S Bharatiya Beej Nigam Limited vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Service Tax

Held

The Court, referencing a previous judgment that highlighted the hardship caused by the denial of GST registration and its impact on livelihood, which is a facet of the right to life under Article 21, found it necessary to provide a remedy. Although the petitioner's application for revocation under Section 30 of the Central GST Act, read with Rule 23, was time-barred, the Court decided to waive the limitation period. The Court directed the petitioner to file the application for revocation within 21 days. The petitioner was also instructed to comply with the other provisions of Section 30, including submitting returns for the defaulted six months and any subsequent completed months after revocation. If any dues are found, and the petitioner pays them, the revenue is to consider the case liberally and dispose of the application within 15 days. This order was motivated by the concern for the livelihood of persons employed by the petitioner company.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bhartiya Beej Nigam Limited, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of Registration and the subsequent Order for Cancellation of Registration, both issued by the Superintendent Central Goods & Service Tax, Range-II, Rudrapur. The petitioner also sought a direction to revive its GST registration. The respondents, represented by the Superintendent, argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Central GST Act for revocation of cancellation, subject to filing appropriate returns for the six months of default as per Rule 23. The Court noted that the show cause notice indicated no outstanding dues against the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have its GST registration revived despite the cancellation order, considering the potential violation of Article 21 of the Constitution if the cancellation affects its livelihood? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought the quashing of the cancellation notice and order, and the revival of its GST registration, implying a challenge to the cancellation itself. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Central GST Act for revocation of the cancellation, provided the petitioner files appropriate returns for the six months of default as per Rule 23. The revenue relied on Section 30 and Rule 23.