Uttarakhand High Court
Jai Bhawani Stone Crusher vs Commissioner Of Central Goods And ... on 15 May, 2025
2025:UHC:4336-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA
15th MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 179 OF 2025
Jai Bhawani Stone Crusher ......Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax,
Nathanpur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and others.
..Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel
holding brief of Mr. Narendra Bali,
learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, counsel for the
respondents.
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Shobhit Saharia.
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.
2025:UHC:4336-DB
4. On a query, learned counsel for the petitioner
fairly submits that no such application has been preferred
by the 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
2025:UHC:4336-DB
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 application, the petitioner
shall also file the returns upto the date of cancellation
order.
8. The order in appeal dated 29.03.2025 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.
Dt: 15th May, 2025
Rathour
PRAVINDRA Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
SINGH
2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3a
eb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6
RATHOUR
179B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8,
cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR
Date: 2025.05.26 12:25:01 +05'30'
