Case Title | Kanika Vishnoi VS Union Of India |
Court | Rajasthan High court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Sandeep Mehta Justice Kuldeep Mathur |
Citation | 2023 (01) GSTPanacea 311 HC Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18273/2022 |
Judgement Date | 12-January-2023 |
In this case, Mr. Sharad Kothari, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, cited previous judgments from the court, specifically Poonamchand Saran Vs. Union of India & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14521/2022 decided on 29.09.2022) and Prakash Purohit Vs. The Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Jaipur & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16269/2022 decided on 10.11.2022). He argued that the petitioner’s appeal was unjustly dismissed due to a minor technicality regarding a delay. Mr. Kothari highlighted that the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration is detrimental as it prevents her from paying GST to the Department, thereby causing a loss to the exchequer. Additionally, the cancellation deprives the petitioner of her means of livelihood.
On the other hand, Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, the learned counsel representing the respondents, admitted that maintaining the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration serves no beneficial purpose. He acknowledged that the cancellation impedes the petitioner’s ability to conduct her business, which infringes on her right to livelihood. This situation violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects the right to life and liberty. The cancellation also results in a loss of revenue for the government.
Given these arguments, the court found that the impugned order dated 06.10.2022, which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, was unjust and decided to set it aside.
Learned counsel Mr. Sharad Kothari, representing the petitioner, relied on the judgments of the court in the cases of Poonamchand Saran Vs. Union of India & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14521/2022 decided on 29.09.2022) and Prakash Purohit Vs. The Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Jaipur & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16269/2022 decided on 10.11.2022). He argued that the petitioner’s appeal was unjustifiably dismissed on the technical ground of delay. He contended that the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration is causing financial loss to the exchequer since the petitioner is unable to deposit GST with the Department. Additionally, the petitioner is being deprived of her livelihood due to the cancellation of the GST registration.
Learned counsel Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, representing the respondents, conceded that maintaining the petitioner’s cancelled registration status serves no useful purpose. He acknowledged that the cancellation prevents the petitioner from continuing her business, thus depriving her of her livelihood and violating her right to life and liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, this situation results in a loss of revenue for the exchequer.
Given this context, the impugned order dated 06.10.2022, which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, is set aside. The petitioner is granted permission to file an appeal against the cancellation of her GST registration to the competent authority within 10 days from the date of this order. Once the appeal is filed, it shall be considered and decided on its merits, in accordance with the law, without being barred by the limitation period for filing the appeal.
Learned counsel Mr. Sharad Kothari, representing the petitioner, referenced two judgments of the court: Poonamchand Saran Vs. Union of India & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14521/2022 decided on 29.09.2022) and Prakash Purohit Vs. The Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Jaipur & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16269/2022 decided on 10.11.2022). He argued that the petitioner’s appeal was unjustly dismissed on the technicality of delay. He emphasized that the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration is detrimental to both the petitioner and the exchequer because the petitioner is unable to deposit GST, leading to revenue loss for the government. Additionally, the petitioner is deprived of her livelihood due to the cancellation of her GST registration.
Learned counsel Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, representing the respondents, agreed that maintaining the cancelled registration status serves no useful purpose. He acknowledged that the petitioner’s inability to continue her business due to the cancelled registration would deprive her of her means of livelihood, thereby violating her right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and would also result in a loss of revenue to the exchequer.
Given this context, the court set aside the impugned order dated 06.10.2022, which had dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal against the cancellation of her GST registration to the competent authority within ten days from the date of the order. The competent authority is directed to consider and decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with the law, excluding the bar of limitation for filing the appeal.
The background of the case includes that the petitioner was a dealer registered under the GST Act. Her registration was cancelled by an order dated 27.01.2021. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for the revocation of the cancelled registration.
In the case presented, learned counsel Mr. Sharad Kothari, representing the petitioner, argued that the petitioner’s appeal had been unjustly dismissed on the overly technical ground of delay. Mr. Kothari referenced two prior judgments from the court: Poonamchand Saran vs. Union of India & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14521/2022 decided on 29.09.2022) and Prakash Purohit vs. The Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Jaipur & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16269/2022 decided on 10.11.2022) to support his case. He contended that the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration is causing a loss to the exchequer since it prevents the petitioner from depositing GST with the Department. Additionally, the petitioner is unable to earn a livelihood due to the cancellation.
On the other side, learned counsel Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, representing the respondents, acknowledged that maintaining the cancelled registration status serves no useful purpose. He admitted that the cancellation of the registration would hinder the petitioner from continuing her business, thus depriving her of her livelihood and violating her right to life and liberty as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This situation would also result in revenue loss for the exchequer.
In light of these arguments, the court decided to set aside the impugned order dated 06.10.2022, which had dismissed the petitioner’s appeal due to the delay. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal against the cancellation of her GST registration to the competent authority within ten days. The court instructed that the new appeal should be considered and decided upon all aspects according to the law, excluding the limitation bar.
The petitioner, who was a dealer registered under the GST Act, had her registration cancelled on 27.01.2021. She subsequently applied for revocation of this cancellation, but her application was rejected by the competent authority on 26.04.2021. The petitioner then appealed against this decision, but her appeal was dismissed on 06.10.2022 solely on the grounds that it was time-barred.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law: