Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The petitioner, a contractor enrolled under the GST Act, 2017, had his GSTN registration canceled due to non-filing of returns for six months. Despite claiming to have handed over documents to an accountant, the petitioner failed to file an appeal within the statutory 90-day period due to being unaware of the proceedings. The court held that the Bombay High Court had previously ruled that the limitation period should not be an issue in registration cancellation cases as it does not adversely affect the state's rights. The GST Act aims to promote trade, and denying registration affects the petitioner's livelihood under Article 21. Small entrepreneurs may struggle with technology, so the GST department should amend provisions, convey notices via SMS and regional languages, and relax rules to avoid stifling small businesses. The writ petitions were disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.