Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Som Traders vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 May, 2024
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2024:RJ-JD:23419-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7713/2024
Som Traders, Through Its Proprietor Somesh Agrawal S/o Shri
Sheetal Kumar Agrawal, Aged 43 Years, R/o G-14, Bidasar
House, Keerti Stambh, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner Of State
Gst, Kar Bhavan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Assistant Commissioner, Circle F, Bikaner Ward Ii, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore
Mr. H.P. Rankawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Dutt
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
23/05/2024
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition
claiming the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the present
writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and the
order dated 09.11.2022 (Annex.4) and order passed
by the Appellate Authority dated 06.01.2023
(Annex.2) may kindly be quashed and set-aside and
the respondent department may kindly be directed to
revoke the cancellation of petitioner firm.
Any other appropriate order or direction which
this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper may also
be passed in favour of the petitioner.
Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in
favour of the petitioner."
2. Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore, learned counsel representing
the petitioner submits that vide order dated 09.11.2022 passed by
the Original Authority and order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the
[2024:RJ-JD:23419-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-7713/2024]
Appellate Authority, the Goods and Services Tax Identification
Number (for short, 'GSTIN') of the petitioner-Firm has been
cancelled. He urges that the petitioner was prevented from
making payment of GST on time because the wife of the petitioner
(proprietor of the Firm) was suffering from cancer, which resulted
in a financial hardship.
2.1. Learned counsel admits that there is a delay on the part of
the petitioner-firm, but at the same time, submits that in case the
GSTIN is permanently cancelled, it would directly infringe upon
the petitioner's right to conduct business in the future, resulting in
deprivation of their right to livelihood as enshrined under Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
2.2. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner-firm is
prepared to pay every kind of liability arising out of the GST Law,
as determined by the respondents.
2.3. Learned counsel has referred to the judgment of M/s
Bhagwati Collection and Handloom Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.280/2023), rendered on
03.02.2023.
3. Mr. Hemant Dutt, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that any kind of revenue loss to the GST due to the delays
on the part of the petitioner would be unacceptable, but at the
same time, if the complete due payments are made, the
respondents shall be open to restoring his GSTIN, particularly
when the crisis like that of cancer has been reported to be the
reason of non-payment.
4. In view of the submissions advanced at bar, this Court feels
that in the given factual matrix, it would be appropriate to restore
[2024:RJ-JD:23419-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-7713/2024]
the GSTIN of the petitioner-firm, if they clear all necessary dues
under the GST Law with the respondents.
5. Thus, the present petition is allowed and the impugned
orders dated 09.11.2022 & 06.01.2023 are quashed and set aside
and accordingly, the respondents are directed to restore the
GSTIN of the petitioner-firm after all the necessary dues, under
the GST Law, which are applicable upon the present petitioner-
firm, are duly paid.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
8-sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
