Order Date – 20 June 2022

 Facts – 

• The Appellant, Vinod Kumar, is a painting professional having GST Registration in the State of Uttarakhand. 
• Since the appellant failed to file his return for a continuous period of six months, which was mandatory under the Uttarakhand Act, his registration was cancelled on 21.09.2019.
• The appellant filed a writ petition against it but the same was dismissed on grounds of delay.
• Aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal.

Issue – 

• Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the limitation provided for filing an appeal is not extendable?

Order – 

• The court observed that U/s 107(1) of the Uttarakhand Act that any person aggrieved by any decision under the Act or the CGST Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within the time frame.
• It is evident that the expression “adjudicating authority” u/s 2(4) does not include the Commissioner but in this case, the order has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and not commissioner, the same view was taken in the Supreme Court case Radha Krishan Industries Vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
• Also, it was observed that if the Appellant is denied his right to livelihood because of the fact that his GST Registration number has been cancelled, and that he has no remedy to appeal, then it shall be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• Therefore, the court held that the writ petition is maintainable. The matter had been remanded back for consideration of case on merits.