[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Creative Hut vs Appellate Authority ... on 12 February, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2026:RJ-JD:7990-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20759/2024
M/s Creative Hut, A Proprietorship Firm Having Office At Ground
Floor, 957, Kailash Bhawan,12Th D Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur
Through Its Proprietor And Authorized Representative Mr. Sharad
Sharma S/o Mr. Kailash Chand Aged About 47 Years R/o K K
Colony, Chainpura Bawadi, Mandore, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Appellate Authority, State Tax Room No. 204, Kar
Bhawan, Collectorate, Jodhpur.
2. Asst Commissioner / Cto, State Tax Work Contract And
Leasing Tax, Collectorate, Jodhpur.
3. Superintendent, Circle-B, Jodhpur Ii - Ward-Ii, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order (Oral)
12/02/2026
Per: Arun Monga, J.
1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks a direction
commanding respondents to entertain the appeal and also
condone the delay and allow the filing of appeal against the
assessment order dated 09.06.2023 issued by the Superintendent,
GST Range-IV, Jodhpur vide which GST registration of petitioner
was cancelled. The appeal against the said order could not per
force be filed before the Appellate Authority as the online status of
the appeal would reveal that the same is time barred. The
petitioner is thus left remediless. Hence, the petitioner, without
availing the remedy of appeal, has preferred the instant writ
petition.
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 12:59:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7990-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-20759/2024]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in
filing the appeal against the order cancelling the GST registration
was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to bona
fide and unavoidable circumstances. The registration was
cancelled for non-furnishing of returns for a continuous period of
six months. During the relevant time, the petitioner's sister-in-law
was suffering from cancer and was undergoing prolonged
treatment. Owing to the said grave medical emergency, severe
mental distress, financial constraints arising out of recession in
business, and lack of coordination with his accountant, the
petitioner could neither regularize the returns nor respond to the
departmental notices in time.
2.1 It is further submitted that when the petitioner's business
condition began to stabilize, he approached the respondent
department for restoration of registration, but was informed that
the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 30 of the Central
Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, for revocation had expired. He
was advised to file an appeal, however, by then, the limitation
period for filing the appeal had also lapsed. The delay, thus,
occurred due to compelling personal and financial circumstances
and not due to any willful negligence or deliberate inaction on the
part of the petitioner.
2.2. Cancellation of the GST certificate of the petitioner
unjustifiably restricts the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on
trade or business and also infringes the freedom of trade
guaranteed under Article 19(1)g read with 301 of the Constitution.
Inability to conduct business due to cancellation or non-restoration
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 12:59:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7990-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-20759/2024]
of GST registration violates the fundamental right to livelihood
under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, on a query from the Court,
learned counsel for the respondents submits that although the
right to carry on trade or business is a fundamental right, it is
subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. He contends
that while the petitioner seeks to continue his business, he has
failed to comply with the provisions of the GST Act, and such non-
compliance renders his claim for continuation of GST registration
untenable.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon an order
dated 23.09.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
M/s Rudraksh Collection v. Joint Commissioner & Ors. 1, and
submits that, as in that case, the petitioner may apply for fresh
GST registration instead of seeking quashing of the cancellation of
the earlier registration, and that such application would be
considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.
5. In response to a further query from the Court put to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, he states that there are no past
tax arrears arising from the petitioner's business activities.
However, despite this, his application in the same name as existed
earlier is not being entertained.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner is willing to pay any penalty or demand that may be
raised by the department while considering the application for
fresh GST registration.
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 12:59:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7990-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-20759/2024]
7. Be that as it may, in view of the aforesaid suggestion made
by the counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the
petitioner also agrees that the petitioner would apply afresh for
registration in the same name as it was earlier registered under.
Being so, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents that the proposed application of the petitioner shall
be accepted online and thereafter a decision shall be taken, either
way, within a period of two months from today.
8. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J
24-Ishan/-
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 12:59:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
