Prakash Purohit vs. The Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's inability to continue his business without GST registration would deprive him of his livelihood, constituting a violation of his right to life and liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court acknowledged that the legal propositions presented by the petitioner, supported by various High Court judgments, covered the controversy. Therefore, the order dated 28.09.2022, which dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, was set aside. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal against the cancellation of his GST registration with the competent authority within ten days from the date of the order. The Court directed that upon filing, the appeal should be considered and decided on all aspects in accordance with law, explicitly excluding the bar of limitation in preferring the appeal. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Prakash Purohit, a proprietor registered under the GST Act, had his GST registration cancelled by an order dated 11.04.2022. The petitioner filed an e-appeal on 27.09.2022, but failed to submit the hard copy. Consequently, his appeal was dismissed by an order dated 28.09.2022 on the grounds of being time-barred. The petitioner challenged this dismissal order. The statutory period for filing an appeal against cancellation of GST registration is three months, extendable by a further 30 days. The petitioner's e-appeal was filed beyond this period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal against the cancellation of his GST registration solely on the ground of being time-barred, despite the petitioner being deprived of his livelihood, violates his fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the dismissal of his appeal on a hyper-technical ground of limitation has left him remediless, preventing him from conducting business and earning a livelihood, which infringes upon his right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. He relied on judgments from various High Courts, including M/s G.G. Agencies Girijeshwar Rice Mill vs The State of Karnataka, Vinod Kumar Vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST, TVL. Suguna Cutpiece Centre vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), and M/s Trans India Carco Carriers Vs. The Assistant Commissioner. Revenue's contention: The respondents (Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, and Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax) opposed the petitioner's submissions. However, they could not dispute the legal proposition expounded by the High Courts cited by the petitioner.