Rohit Enterprises vs. The Commissioner - (High Court of Bombay) (16 Feb 2023)

Provisions of GST enactment cannot be interpreted so as to deny right to carry on Trade and Commerce to any citizen

MANU/MH/0515/2023

Goods and Services Tax

The Petitioner is a proprietary firm engaged in the business of fabrication work. The Petitioner filed appeal under section 107 of the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 challenging cancellation of registration. The Deputy Commissioner/State Tax (Appeal), rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation that, the appeal has been submitted beyond the prescribed period provided under Section 107 (1) and 107 (4) of the MGST Act, 2017.

The provisions of GST enactment cannot be interpreted so as to deny right to carry on Trade and Commerce to any citizen and subjects. The constitutional guarantee is unconditional and unequivocal and must be enforced regardless of shortcomings in the scheme of GST enactment. The right to carry on trade or profession cannot be curtailed contrary to the constitutional guarantee under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. If the person like Petitioner is not allowed to revive the registration, the state would suffer loss of revenue and the ultimate goal under GST regime will stand defeated. The Petitioner deserves a chance to come back into GST fold and carry on his business in legitimate manner.

There is one more aspect as far as the issue regarding limitation in filing the appeal under Section 107 of MGST Act is concerned. Indeed, the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax has no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days. But then one cannot overlook the aspect of provisions stipulating limitations. The objective is to terminate the lis and not to divest a person of the right vested in him by efflux of time.

The Petitioner, who is sufferer of unique circumstances resulting from pandemic and his health barriers, would be put to great hardship for want of GST registration. The Petitioner who is small scale entrepreneur cannot carry on production activities in absence of GST registration. Resultantly, his right to livelihood would be affected. Since his statutory appeal suffered dismissal on technical ground, we cannot allow the situation to continue. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even looking to the object of the provisions under GST Act, it is not in the interest of the government to curtail the right of the entrepreneur like petitioner. The Petitioner must be allowed to continue business and to contribute to the state's revenue.

The order suspending the GST registration, the order cancelling GST registration of the petitioner passed by the State Tax Officer and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Tax, are quashed and set aside. The registration in the name of the petitioner is declared valid, from 28-02-2022 onwards subject to the condition that the petitioner files up to date GST returns and deposits entire pending dues along with applicable interest, penalty, late fees in terms of Rule 23 (1) of MAST Rules, 2017. Petition allowed.

Tags : REGISTRATION GST GRANT