Cancellation Of GST Registration Affects Right To Livelihood, Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Uttarakhand High Court

The division bench headed by the Acting Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe has observed that the appellant is denied his right to livelihood because of the cancellation of his GST Registration number. He has no remedy to appeal. It shall be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution as the right to livelihood springs from the right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The appellant/assessee is working as a mason or paint professional. He had applied for GST registration and was allotted a GST registration number. The appellant failed to file his return for a continuous period of six months, which was mandatory under the Uttarakhand Act. Hence, his registration was cancelled on September 21, 2019. He preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, but it was dismissed on the ground of delay. Thereafter, the appellant/appellant filed a writ petition before the Court, which was also dismissed as not maintainable.

The single judge bench held that the writ petition was not maintainable. There was an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the appellant under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The appellant was aggrieved by the order of the single judge and filed the intra-court appeal.

The appellant contended that even in cases where alternative and efficacious remedies are available, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction. The Statute does not provide any prohibition against the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court.

The issue raised was whether a writ petition is maintainable when the limitation provided for filing an appeal is not extendable.

The court noted that a notice was given on the website, which was not sufficient, and a personal notice had to be given before the cancellation of the registration. Therefore, the Court can invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and hold that the orders passed by the Commissioner can be interfered with in a writ jurisdiction.

The court observed that the law made by Parliament with regard to appeals is very strict. The law does not grant the First Appellate Authority unlimited jurisdiction to extend the limitation beyond one month after the prescribed limitation has expired. The appellant is put through 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.

"The appellant is a semi-skilled labourer working as a painter, doing painting on doors and windows of the houses. Nowadays, bills for any work executed for a private player or, even for a government agency, are drawn online. In most cases, the payments are made direct to the bank on production of the bill with the GST registration number. In the absence of a GST registration number, a professional cannot raise a bill," the court said.

The court quashed the order of the Single Judge and allowed the Special Appeal. The court remanded the matter back to the Single Judge for consideration on the merits.

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Versus Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST and others

Case No: Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 23 

Dated: 20.06.2022

Counsel For Appellant: Senior Counsel S.K. Posti, assisted by Ashutosh

Counsel For Respondent: Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand Tarun Lakhera

Click Here To Read/Download Order