Sheetal Bhatia vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioner, Sheetal Bhatia, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the cancellation of her GST registration. The State of Uttarakhand and others were the respondents. The Court noted that the instant writ petition could be disposed of in terms of a previous judgment rendered by the same Court on May 15, 2025, in Writ Petition (M/B) No.176 of 2025. The previous judgment dealt with a similar issue of GST registration cancellation. The petitioner in the present case had not yet filed an application under Section 30 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to revoke the cancellation order.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to apply for revocation of the GST registration cancellation. The Court, referencing its previous judgment in Writ Petition (M/B) No.176 of 2025, decided to condone any delay in filing the application under Section 30 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The reasoning was that the cancellation of GST registration directly affects a citizen's livelihood and can also lead to revenue loss for the State. The Court acknowledged that the GST Act is relatively new and may be complex for common citizens. Therefore, the Court directed that if the petitioner files an application under Section 30 within three weeks from the date of the judgment, it shall be considered and disposed of within three weeks thereafter. The petitioner was also required to file all pending returns up to the date of the cancellation order. The previous order of cancellation dated March 29, 2025, was set aside. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to apply for revocation of GST registration cancellation under Section 30 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, despite the delay in filing such an application? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner, represented by Mr. H.M. Bhatia, did not explicitly argue this point in the current proceeding but was bound by the previous judgment. Revenue/State's argument: The State, represented by Ms. Puja Banga, initially pointed out that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Act. However, in the previous judgment, the State did not contest the condonation of delay for invoking Section 30.