Sai Construction and Builders v. Commissioner

HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON'BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. G. NARENDAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK MAHRA 2 2 ND JULY, 2 0 25

W RI T PETI TI ON ( M/ S) NO. 22 8 7 OF 2 0 2 4 Sai Construction & Builders

....Petitioner Ver su s Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax and others …..Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner

: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Narendra Bali. Counsel for the State : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder.

JUDGMENT :(per Mr . G. Nar en dar , C.J.)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel.

2.

The short question involved in this writ petition is correctness of the cancellation of the GST registration.

3.

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.

4.

On a query, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that no such application has been preferred by the

petitioner.

5.

It is seen that the application is required to be made within 90 days.

6.

In view of the enforcement of the Act being at the initial stage and various typical aspects of the Act being a little beyond the understanding of a common man, whose prime focus is on running his day to day business, we feel that the limitation should not take precedence for reconsideration of the order of cancellation. The cancellation directly affects the livelihood of the citizen and every cancellation would also have an adverse effect on the revenues of the State, as it is well known that no person can carry-on trade or business as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, without complying with the restriction of registration.

7.

In that view, keeping a larger objective of the involvement of livelihood and also loss of revenue to the Department, we are of the considered opinion that delay in invoking the provisions of Section 30 of the Act is required to be condoned and is, accordingly, condoned. If an application is made by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 30 of the Act within three weeks from today and if such an application is made, the same shall be taken-up for consideration and shall be disposed of within three weeks thereafter. Along with the

application, the petitioner shall also file the returns upto the date of cancellation order.

8.

The order in appeal dated 13.08.2024 is set aside.

9.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

10.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

_ _ _ __ _ _ G. NARENDAR, C.J.

_ _ _ _ _

ALOK MAHRA, J. Dated: 22nd July, 2025 NI SHANT NISHANT KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5ddtia4c574afatifd63133605ca5 7cdctitiec2b7462b452b326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892 BC63A055CFD1961690560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR Date: 2025.07.24 12:33:21 +05'30'