GST registration cancellation without proper notice violates livelihood rights under Article 21, writ petition maintainable when Section 107 appeal time-barred

The Uttarakhand HC allowed an appeal challenging dismissal of a writ petition regarding GST registration cancellation. The petitioner, a semi-skilled painter, faced registration cancellation without proper personal notice. The HC held that when statutory appeal under Section 107 is time-barred and no alternative remedy exists, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is maintainable. The court emphasized that denial of GST registration affects livelihood rights under Article 21, particularly for laborers dependent on registration for employment. The HC found the Assistant Commissioner is not an independent adjudicating authority but acts under Commissioner's control, making statutory appeal provisions inapplicable. The matter was remanded for merit consideration after setting aside the single judge's maintainability dismissal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Adequacy of notice provided before the cancellation of GST registration.
3. Impact of cancellation of GST registration on the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.
4. Interpretation of "adjudicating authority" under the Uttarakhand Act and its implications on the appeal process.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The appellant challenged the dismissal of his writ petition on the grounds that it was not maintainable due to an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks, which allows writ petitions even when alternative remedies exist if fundamental rights are enforced, the vires of an Act are challenged, principles of natural justice are violated, or the order is wholly without jurisdiction. The court noted that the statute does not prohibit the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the practice of not entertaining writ petitions where alternative remedies exist is a self-imposed internal mechanism of the courts.

2. Adequacy of Notice Before Cancellation:
The court found that the notice given on the website was insufficient. A personal notice should have been provided before the cancellation of the GST registration. This inadequacy allowed the court to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Commissioner.

3. Impact on Right to Livelihood:
The court highlighted the strictness of the law regarding appeals and the hardship faced by the petitioner due to the cancellation of his GST registration. The inability to appeal within the prescribed limitation period left the petitioner without remedy, affecting his right to livelihood. The court emphasized that denial of GST registration affects the petitioner's chances of employment and violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right to livelihood.

4. Interpretation of "Adjudicating Authority":
The court examined whether the Assistant Commissioner of GST qualifies as an "adjudicating authority" under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Act. The Supreme Court's judgment in Radha Krishan Industries Vs State of Himachal Pradesh was referenced, which clarified that the expression "adjudicating authority" does not include the Commissioner. The Uttarakhand Act's definition of "adjudicating authority" is similar to the Himachal Pradesh Act, and the Assistant Commissioner acts under the control of the Commissioner. Therefore, the court concluded that an appeal under Section 107 does not lie against orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, including the cancellation of GST registration.

Conclusion:
The court held that the writ petition was maintainable and the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing it on maintainability grounds. The matter was remanded to the learned Single Judge for consideration on merits, specifically regarding the cancellation of the appellant's GST registration. The Special Appeal was allowed, and the case was directed to be listed before the assigned Single Bench.

---