M/S New Alert Security System vs. State Of Rajasthan
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s New Alert Security System, through its proprietor, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. The petition challenged an order dated 28.12.2023, which is not explicitly detailed but is implied to be related to the cancellation of GST registration or a subsequent appeal. The parties jointly submitted that the controversy was covered by a previous Division Bench order in Poonamchand Saran Vs. Union of India & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14521/2022). In that case, petitioners whose GST registrations were cancelled faced issues with filing appeals, either due to not submitting hard copies after e-filing or missing the deadline due to unavoidable reasons. The previous judgment noted that such cancellation deprived them of livelihood, violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
Held
The Court held that the denial of GST registration and the subsequent inability to continue business deprives the petitioners of their livelihood, which amounts to a violation of the right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court found that the legal proposition expounded by various High Courts in similar matters, where appeals against cancellation of GST registration were dismissed on hyper-technical grounds, covered the present controversy. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2023. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the cancellation of their GST registration to the competent authority within ten days from the date of the order. Upon filing, such appeals were to be considered and decided on all aspects in accordance with law, expressly excluding the bar of limitation. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should grant relief to a petitioner whose GST registration was cancelled, and the appeal against such cancellation was dismissed on grounds of limitation or procedural non-compliance, considering the impact on their livelihood? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on principles of natural justice, Article 21 of the Constitution, and the interpretation of GST appeal provisions). Petitioner's arguments (as inferred from the precedent relied upon): The petitioner argued that being deprived of the opportunity to do business due to hyper-technical reasons of appeal filing (e.g., not submitting hard copies or missing deadlines due to unavoidable circumstances) results in a loss of livelihood, violating their right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. They sought an opportunity to file the appeal in the proper format and for the authority to decide it on merits. Respondent's arguments: The respondent opposed the submissions but could not dispute the legal proposition expounded by various High Courts in similar cases, acknowledging that the issue was covered by precedent.
Sections Cited
Article 21
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 09/04/2024
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Poonamchand Saran Vs. Union of India & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14521/2022) on 29.09.2022, which reads as follows: “Issue notice to the respondents. Shri Rajvendra Saraswat, Advocate, Standing Counsel for GST Department puts in appearance on their behalf. With consent of learned counsel for parties and looking to the urgency involved, the writ petitions are being heard and finally decided today itself. The petitioners were dealers registered under the GST Act. Their registration came to be cancelled by the competent authority vide orders dated 09.09.2022 (passed in SBCWP
[2024:RJ-JD:15727-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-2092/2024] No.14521/2022) and 09.05.2022 (passed in SBCWP No.14524/2022). It is not disputed that appeal against cancellation of the GST registration can be filed within thirty days which can be extended by a further period of 30 days. The petitioner Poonamchand Saran filed the e-appeal in time but could not submit the hard-copy. On the other hand, the petitioner Mohan Singh failed to submit an appeal against the cancellation order dated 09.05.2022. The petitioner Poonamchand has challenged the order dated 09.09.2022 whereby his appeal has been dismissed on the ground of same being time-barred. The petitioner Mohan Singh has raised the grievance of not being able to file an appeal on account of unavoidable reasons. Learned counsel Shri Balia assisted by Mr. Sharad Kothari placed reliance on the following judgments rendered by various High Courts:-
M/s G.G. Agencies Girijeshwar Rice Mill vs The State of Karnataka & Ors. (Writ Petition No.15344 of 2022, GST & Ors. : 2022 (7) TMI 128 - Uttarakhand High Commissioner (Circle), Salem Bazaar : 2022 (2) TMI 933 - Madras High Court
M/s Trans India Carco Carriers Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Circle) W.P. Nos.18537 of 2022 and etc. - Madras High Court. and urged that the petitioners have been left remediless for hyper-technical reasons of the appeal against cancellation GST registration not being filed in hard-copy/in time. He contended that owing to cancellation of GST registration, the petitioners are being deprived of the opportunity of doing business which has resulted into loss of all avenues of earning livelihood and is violative of right to life and liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He thus, urges that one more opportunity deserves to be given to the petitioners to file the appeal in the proper format and the competent authority may be directed to decide such appeal as per law. Shri Saraswat, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners’ counsel. However, he
[2024:RJ-JD:15727-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-2092/2024] too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the legal proposition as expounded by various High Courts in the judgments referred to supra, covers the controversy at hand. It cannot be denied that the petitioners herein would not be able to continue with their business in absence of GST registration and thus, would be deprived of their livelihood which amounts to violation of right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this background, the order dated 09.09.2022 passed in the case of Poonamchand Saran (Writ Petition No.14521/2022) is set aside. Both the petitioners are given liberty to file appeal against the cancellation of their GST registration to the competent authority within ten days from today. Upon such appeals being filed, the same shall be considered and decided on all aspects in accordance with law excluding the bar of limitation in preferring the appeal by the petitioners. With the above observations and directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.”
In light of aforequoted order, the present petition is disposed of in the same terms while quashing and set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 (Annex.3).
All pending applications stand disposed of. (YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 4-Sudheer/-
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.