Sai Construction & Builders vs Commissioner
2025 Latest Caselaw 1253 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sai Construction & Builders vs Commissioner on 22 July, 2025

                                                                   2025:UHC:6402-DB


      HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
                        AND
          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA
                  22ND JULY, 2025
      WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2287 OF 2024
Sai Construction & Builders               ....Petitioner
                          Versus
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. Narendar, 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

2025:UHC:6402-DB

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

2025:UHC:6402-DB

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 NISHANT

NISHANT

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH

2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca5 7cdc00ec2b7462b452b326, postalCode=263001,

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