Uttarakhand High Court
M/S Bhartiya Beej Nigam Limited vs Superintendent Central Goods & ... on 8 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3143 of 2022
M/s Bhartiya Beej Nigam Limited .......... Petitioner
Versus
Superintendent Central Goods & Service Tax, Range-II, Rudrapur
Division Dehradun Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents
Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsels for the writ applicant.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents.
-----------
Judgment dated: 08.12.2022
Hon'ble Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Upon hearing the learned counsels, the Court made the
following Order.
1. By filing this writ application, the
petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"a. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature
of certiorari quashing the impugned Show
Cause Notice for Cancellation of Registration
bearing Reference No. ZA050322001110R dated
02/03/2022 (Annexure-2) issued by the
Respondent No.-1;
b. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature
of certiorari quashing the impugned Order for
Cancellation of Registration bearing Reference
No. ZA050522011980Y dated 19/05/2022
(Annexure-1) issued by the Respondent No.-1;
c. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature
of mandamus directing the Respondent to
revive the GST registration of the Petition;
d. Issue any other writ, order or direction,
and/or allow any other consequential relief as
expedient in law, on the facts and
circumstances of the case."
2. In the light of judgment passed in
Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022 decided on
20.06.2022, the Court in the case has
observed as follows:
"8) Viewing from another angle, it is
apparent that the law made by the
Parliament as well as the Legislature with
regard to the appeals is very strict, insofar
as, that it does not provide an unlimited
jurisdiction on the First Appellate Authority
to extend the limitation beyond one month
after the expiry of the prescribed limitation.
In such case, the petitioner/appellant is put
to hardship and is left without remedy. In
such cases, the party concerned may face
starvation because of denial of livelihood for
want of GST Registration. In this case, the
petitioner/appellant is a semi-skilled labour
working as a painter doing painting on
doors, windows of the houses. Now-a-days
bills for any work executed for a private
player or, even for the Government agency,
are drawn on-line. In most cases, the
payments are made direct to the bank on 6
production of the bill with the GST
registration number. In the absence of GST
registration number, a professional cannot
raise a bill. So, if the petitioner is denied a
GST registration number, it affects his
chances of getting employment or executing
works. Such denial of registration of GST
number, therefore, affects his right to
livelihood. If he is denied his right to
livelihood because of the fact that his GST
Registration number has been cancelled,
and that he has no remedy to appeal, then
it shall be violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution as right to livelihood springs
from the right to life as enshrined in Article
21 of the Constitution of India. In this case,
if we allow the situation so prevailing to
continue, then it will amount to violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution, and right to
life of a citizen of this country"
3. The petitioner is a limited company
dealing with the seeds for agriculture. The
learned counsel Mr. Shobhit Saharia
appearing for the revenue would submit that
as per Section 30 of the Central GST Act, the
petitioner has an alternative forum of filing
an application for revocation of the
cancelation of GST with the further condition
that the petitioner must file appropriate
returns for the six months which he fail to
upload in the portal of the GST Department
as per Rule 23 of the relevant rules.
4. Since, the notice has been sent to the
petitioner reading nil outstanding against it,
it is further directed that the petitioner shall
file an application for revocation under
Section 30 in terms of Rule 23, though it is
time barred we are inclined to wave the
limitation and direct the petitioner to file
application for revocation within 21 days
hence. He shall also comply the other
provision of Section 30 i.e submission of
returns for the defaulted six months and any
further completed months after the
revocation. In such case if dues is found to
be due from the petitioner and he pays the
same than his case shall be considered
liberal by the revenue and shall be dispose of
the same within 15 days. We are constrained
to pass this order because livelihood of many
persons who are working with the petition
companies at stage.
5. There shall be no order to costs.
(S.K.Mishra,J.)
08.12.2022
(Grant certified copy as per Rules)
Nahid
