Allowed

Som Traders v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 May 2024CW/7713/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition filed by Som Traders challenging the cancellation of its GSTIN. The petitioners cited health issues causing financial hardship as reasons for delay. The court directed the respondents to restore the GSTIN conditional upon the clear payment of all outstanding tax dues.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 09.11.2022 and 06.01.2023 quashed; Respondents directed to restore GSTIN after clearing all dues under GST Law.

Som Traders Vs State of Rajasthan — GST and Indirect Tax | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:23419-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7713/2024

¶4

Som Traders, Through Its Proprietor Somesh Agrawal S/o Shri Sheetal Kumar Agrawal, Aged 43 Years, R/o G-14, Bidasar House, Keerti Stambh, Bikaner.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner Of State Gst, Kar Bhavan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Assistant Commissioner, Circle F, Bikaner Ward Ii, Bikaner.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore Mr. H.P. Rankawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Dutt

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

¶12

Order

¶13

23/05/2024

¶14

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition

¶15

claiming the following reliefs:-

¶16

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the present writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and the order dated 09.11.2022 (Annex.4) and order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 06.01.2023 (Annex.2) may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the respondent department may kindly be directed to revoke the cancellation of petitioner firm.

¶17

Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶18

Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

¶19

Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that vide order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the Original Authority and order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the

¶20

[2024:RJ-JD:23419-DB]

¶21

[CW-7713/2024]

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

Appellate Authority, the Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (for short, 'GSTIN') of the petitioner-Firm has been cancelled. He urges that the petitioner was prevented from making payment of GST on time because the wife of the petitioner (proprietor of the Firm) was suffering from cancer, which resulted in a financial hardship.

¶24

2.1. Learned counsel admits that there is a delay on the part of the petitioner-firm, but at the same time, submits that in case the GSTIN is permanently cancelled, it would directly infringe upon the petitioner's right to conduct business in the future, resulting in deprivation of their right to livelihood as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

2.2. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner-firm is prepared to pay every kind of liability arising out of the GST Law, as determined by the respondents.

¶26

2.3. Learned counsel has referred to the judgment of M/s

¶27

Bhagwati Collection and Handloom Vs. State of Rajasthan &

¶28

Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.280/2023), rendered on 03.02.2023.

¶29

Mr. Hemant Dutt, learned counsel for the respondents submits that any kind of revenue loss to the GST due to the delays on the part of the petitioner would be unacceptable, but at the same time, if the complete due payments are made, the respondents shall be open to restoring his GSTIN, particularly when the crisis like that of cancer has been reported to be the reason of non-payment.

¶30

In view of the submissions advanced at bar, this Court feels that in the given factual matrix, it would be appropriate to restore

¶31

[2024:RJ-JD:23419-DB]

¶32

[CW-7713/2024]

¶33

(3 of 3)

¶34

the GSTIN of the petitioner-firm, if they clear all necessary dues under the GST Law with the respondents.

¶35

Thus, the present petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 09.11.2022 & 06.01.2023 are quashed and set aside and accordingly, the respondents are directed to restore the GSTIN of the petitioner-firm after all the necessary dues, under the GST Law, which are applicable upon the present petitionerfirm, are duly paid.

¶36

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J

¶37

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶38

8-sudheer/-

Som Traders v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Som Traders v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.India Golden Transport Company Vs State and Anr.

Durgesh Bharti Goswami Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganpat Singh Chundawat Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Sandeep Kumar Meena

Sumer Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Krishna Construction Company Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax