M/S R K Contractors Through Its Prop. vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s R.K. Contractors, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The State, through its learned Brief Holder, pointed out that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. The petitioner conceded that no such application had been filed. The cancellation order was dated December 23, 2024. The Court noted that the application under Section 30 is typically required to be made within 90 days.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the delay in availing it should be condoned. The Court reasoned that the cancellation of GST registration directly impacts a citizen's livelihood and can also lead to revenue loss for the State. Given that the Act's enforcement is in its initial stages and some provisions might be complex for a common man, the Court prioritized the larger objective of livelihood and revenue. Therefore, the delay in filing the application under Section 30 was condoned. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an application under Section 30 within three weeks from the date of the order, it shall be considered and disposed of within three weeks thereafter. The petitioner was also directed to file all pending returns up to the date of the cancellation order. The impugned order dated December 23, 2024, was set aside.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is barred from seeking relief from the High Court due to the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and its failure to avail it within the prescribed time limit? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner did not explicitly argue against the existence of the alternative remedy but implicitly sought intervention from the High Court. The Court's reasoning suggests the petitioner's focus was on the cancellation order itself. Respondents' contention: The State argued that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Section 30 of the Act to apply for revocation of the cancellation order and that no such application has been filed. They relied on the existence of this remedy as a ground for the High Court to decline jurisdiction.