Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs The Commissioner on 11 September, 2025
2025:UHC:8131-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2730 of 2024
11th September, 2025
M/s Sangam Sanskaritik Samiti --------Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax,
Dehradun, Uttarakand and others
-------Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Shaket Kumar, Anuj Chhabra and Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsels for
the petitioner.
Mr. Harsh Rautela, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia,
learned counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Learned counsel for the parties submit that
the present Writ Petition can be disposed of in terms of
the order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Writ Petition
(M/B) No. 176 of 2025, Web Docorina vs.
Commissioner of Commercial Tax/State GST and
others. The said order reads as under:
"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 Brief Holder for
the State submits that the petitioner has an alternative
remedy under the provisions of Section 30 of the
2025:UHC:8131-DB
Uttarakhand 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 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.
2025:UHC:8131-DB
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."
2. In view of the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties, who agreed that the issue
involved in Writ Petition is similar to the issued decided
in the Writ Petition (M/B) No. 176 of 2025, Web Docorina
vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax/State GST and
others, the present Writ Petition is disposed of in terms
of relief granted in Paragraph No. 7 & 8 of the said
judgment, referred above.
3. This Writ Petition stands ordered accordingly.
4. There shall be no order as to costs.
5. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(G. NARENDAR, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 11.09.2025
Kaushal
