Ms River View Restaurent vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax
Facts
The petitioner, M/s River View Restaurant, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The respondents, State of Uttarakhand and others, submitted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Central 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 Court noted that the application under Section 30 is typically required to be made within 90 days. The cancellation order was dated 23.06.2025.
Held
The Court held that while an alternative remedy exists under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, the strict enforcement of the limitation period should not take precedence, especially given the initial stage of GST implementation and the potential complexity for common citizens. The Court recognized that cancellation of registration directly impacts livelihood and revenue. Therefore, the delay in invoking 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 23.06.2025 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 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the petitioner's 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 rather sought direct intervention from the High Court. The petitioner fairly submitted that no application under Section 30 had been preferred. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, to apply for revocation of the cancellation of registration, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Sections Cited
Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT :(per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel.
The short question involved in this writ petition is correctness of the cancellation of the GST registration.
After hearing for some time, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the provisions of Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), wherein the registered dealer, who has suffered an order of cancellation of the registration, is entitled to make an application under the provisions of Section 30 of the Act to revoke the orders of cancellation of registration.
On a query, le
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.