M/S Bombay Classic Carpets vs. State Tax Officer State Goods And Service Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bombay Classic Carpets, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of Registration dated 08/07/2022 and an Order for Cancellation of Registration dated 08/08/2022, both issued by the State Tax Officer, State Goods & Service Tax, Sector-6, Dehradun. The petitioner also sought a direction to revive its GST registration. The Court referred to a previous judgment in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022, which highlighted the hardship faced by individuals whose GST registration is cancelled, impacting their livelihood and potentially violating Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner was identified as a labour contractor.

Held

The Court, referencing the principles laid down in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022, acknowledged the severe hardship caused by the cancellation of GST registration, particularly for individuals whose livelihood depends on it. The Court found that such cancellation can indeed affect a citizen's right to livelihood, which is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ application by granting the petitioner liberty to file an appropriate application before the Superintendent of Central Tax Range IV, Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand, within ten days. The Court directed that this application/representation be reconsidered and adjudicated. Furthermore, noting that a notice indicated nil outstanding dues against the petitioner, the Court instructed the respondent No. 1 to take a lenient view and dispose of the matter within 15 days of the production of a certified copy of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration, leading to the inability to raise bills and consequently affecting the petitioner's right to livelihood, violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the cancellation of GST registration directly impacts their ability to earn a livelihood, as bills cannot be raised without a valid GST number, thus infringing upon their fundamental right to life and livelihood as guaranteed by Article 21. The petitioner relied on the observations made in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022. The respondents' arguments were not explicitly recorded in the judgment.