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. 1 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 2 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 3 PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3a eb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6 179B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2025.05.26 12:25:01 +05'30'