Vinod Kumar VS Commissioner Uttarakhand SGST

In this intra-court appeal, the appellant, who is a mason/painting professional registered under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in Uttarakhand, challenges the order of a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1553 of 2021, dated 30.09.2021. The appeal is based on the contention that the writ petition should not have been entertained because there exists an alternative and effective remedy under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as ‘the Uttarakhand Act’).

The appellant, working in the capacity of a mason/painting professional, had obtained GST registration with GSTIN 05AGMPK8182B3ZC. However, he failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of filing returns for six consecutive months, leading to the cancellation of his registration on 21.09.2019. Despite this, he appealed to the First Appellate Authority, but his appeal was dismissed due to procedural delays.

Subsequently, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Court, seeking relief. However, the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of being not maintainable, presumably due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Act.

Therefore, the crux of the appeal lies in the interpretation of whether the writ petition should have been entertained when there was an alternative remedy available under the Uttarakhand Act. The appellant contends that the dismissal of the writ petition was erroneous and seeks the appellate court to reconsider the matter.

The learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner/appellant argues that the High Court retains absolute discretion over the issuance of high prerogative writs, even in cases where alternative and efficacious remedies are available. Citing the landmark case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1, it is contended that the High Court can entertain a writ petition under certain circumstances. These include cases where the petition is for the enforcement of fundamental rights, challenges the vires of an Act, alleges a violation of principles of natural justice, or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.

Thus, it is asserted that the statute does not explicitly prohibit the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The practice of generally not entertaining writ petitions when an alternative remedy exists is considered an internal mechanism adopted by the Court, rather than a statutory prohibition. The argument suggests that the Court should retain the flexibility to consider writ petitions even when alternative remedies are available, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights, jurisdictional issues, or violations of natural justice principles.

Furthermore, the issue of whether a writ petition is maintainable when the limitation for filing an appeal is not extendable, as in the present case, was deliberated upon by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the matter of Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and others, 2016 0 AIR(Guj) 97. This case prompted the referral to a larger Bench to address three specific questions, with the third question being particularly relevant to the current scenario. The third question, as stated, was:

“When if the statutory remedy or appeal under Section 35 is barred by the law of limitation whether in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order passed by the original adjudicating authority could be challenged on merit?”

The response to this question was provided by the Hon’ble Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in paragraph 31 of the said judgment, specifically in sub-paragraph (3). The Full Bench held affirmatively that in certain circumstances, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be preferred to challenge the order passed by the original adjudicating authority. These circumstances include:

A) The authority passing the order without jurisdiction or assuming jurisdiction where none exists.
B) Acting in flagrant disregard of law, rules, or procedure, or violating principles of natural justice where no specific procedure is outlined.

Resultantly, if such actions lead to a failure of justice or result in gross injustice, a writ petition can be entertained. It’s emphasized that the exercise of this power is discretionary, guided solely by the dictates of the judicial conscience enriched by the judge’s judicial experience and practical wisdom. Thus, the Gujarat High Court’s ruling provides a framework for considering writ petitions in situations where statutory remedies or appeals are time-barred, but injustice or violation of legal principles has occurred.

The record indicates that a notice was issued on the website regarding the cancellation of registration, which the court deems insufficient. In the court’s considered opinion, personal notice should have been served before canceling the registration. Consequently, the court asserts its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, suggesting that the orders passed by the Commissioner can be subject to scrutiny and interference in a writ jurisdiction.

Looking at the situation from another perspective, it becomes evident that the legislation concerning appeals imposes stringent limitations, with no provision allowing the First Appellate Authority to extend the limitation period beyond one month after its expiration. This places the petitioner/appellant in a precarious position, devoid of any recourse. Such circumstances could lead to severe hardships, potentially depriving individuals of their livelihoods. In this specific case, the petitioner/appellant, a semi-skilled laborer working as a painter, relies on GST registration to secure work and receive payments. The modern practice of billing and payment often requires a valid GST registration number. Without it, individuals like the petitioner face significant obstacles in finding employment or executing projects.

The denial of a GST registration number directly impacts the petitioner’s right to earn a livelihood. Denying someone their right to livelihood due to the cancellation of their GST registration without providing an effective remedy could be construed as a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life. Upholding such a situation would contravene the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and undermine the right to life of citizens. Therefore, allowing this state of affairs to persist would amount to a violation of Article 21 and the right to life of every citizen.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: