Uttarakhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Verma vs Superintendent Central Tax Range ... on 7 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2154 of 2022
Manoj Kumar Verma .......... Petitioner
versus
Superintendent Central Tax Range IV Uttarakashi
Uttarakhand and Another ......Respondents
Mr. Rohi Arora, learned counsels for the writ applicant.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents.
-----------
Judgment dated: 07.09.2022
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.
ZA051220014886 and dated 18/12/2020 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. ZA0512200251477
and dated 31/12/2020 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. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is a labour
contractor, the writ application is disposed of giving him
the liberty to file an appropriate application before the
Superintendent of Central Tax Range IV, Uttarkashi,
Uttarakhand within ten days; and on such event, his
application/representation shall be reconsidered and the
matter shall be adjudicated.
4. Since, the notice send to him reading
nil outstanding against the petitioner, the respondent no. 1
shall take a lenient view on the matter and dispose of the
same within 15 days from the production of certified copy
of this order.
(S.K.Mishra, J.)
07.09.2022
Pooja
