M/S Ameer Hamza Enterprises vs. State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Ameer Hamza Enterprises, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer, which cancelled its GST registration, and to restore the registration. The respondent authority argued that the petitioner had an effective alternative statutory remedy under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to file an application for revocation of cancellation. The petitioner conceded that no such application had been filed. The cancellation order was dated 20.12.2024, and the statutory period for filing a revocation application is 90 days from that date.
Held
The Court held that while an alternative statutory remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, was available, the delay in filing the application for revocation of GST registration should be condoned. The Court reasoned that the GST Act is in its initial stages of implementation, and common businessmen might not fully understand its provisions. Cancellation of GST registration significantly impacts livelihood and trade, guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, and also affects state revenue. Therefore, technical limitations should not impede substantive justice. The Court condoned the delay and permitted the petitioner to file the revocation application within three weeks. The respondent authority was directed to decide the application on merits within three weeks thereafter. The petitioner was also directed to file all pending GST returns up to the date of cancellation along with the revocation application.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has an effective alternative statutory remedy available for the cancellation of its GST registration? 2. Whether the delay in filing an application for revocation of GST registration under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, should be condoned? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought direct intervention from the High Court to quash the cancellation order and restore its registration, implicitly arguing that the writ jurisdiction was appropriate despite the existence of a statutory remedy. The petitioner did not explicitly argue on the merits of the cancellation itself but sought relief from the High Court. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the petitioner possessed an effective alternative statutory remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, for seeking revocation of the cancelled GST registration, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.
Sections Cited
Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026:UHC:613 1
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Bench No. 54 of 2026 22nd January, 2026
M/s Ameer Hamza Enterprises ……..Petitioner
Versus
State Tax Officer
……Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Sukhwani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner through Video Conferencing. Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J. (Oral)
By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 20.12.2024, passed by the respondent authority, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled, as well as the show cause notice issued for such cancellation. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authority to restore/revive the GST registration of the petitioner.
The short question involved in the present writ petition is regarding the validity and correctness of the cancellation of the GST registration of the petitioner.
2026:UHC:613 2
After hearing the matter for some time, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has an effective alternative statutory remedy available under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Under the said provision, a registered person whose GST registration has been cancelled is entitled to file an application seeking revocation of cancellation of registration.
Upon a specific query made by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that no application under Section 30 of the Act has been filed by the petitioner so far.
It is noticed that such an application for revocation of cancellation is required to be filed within a period of 90 days from the date of the cancellation order.
Considering the fact that the Act is still at a relatively initial stage of implementation and that many provisions of the Act may not be fully understood by a common businessman, whose primary concern is to run his day-to-day business, the Court is of the view that technical limitation should not override substantive justice in such matters. Cancellation of GST registration directly affects the livelihood of the petitioner, and at the same time, it also adversely affects the revenue of the
2026:UHC:613 3 State, since no person can lawfully carry on trade or business, as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, without having a valid GST registration.
In view of the above considerations, and keeping in mind the larger public interest involving livelihood and revenue, the Court is of the considered opinion that the delay in filing an application under Section 30 of the Act deserves to be condoned, and the same is hereby condoned. The petitioner is permitted to file an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration under Section 30 of the Act within a period of three weeks from today. If such an application is filed within the stipulated time, the respondent authority shall consider and decide the same on merits within a further period of three weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall also file all pending GST returns up to the date of cancellation of registration along with the said application.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Any pending application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Vacation Judge
2026 Mamta
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.