K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—The petitioners herein, who were registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST ACT’ for brevity) and the Bihar State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity ‘BGST Act’) are aggrieved with the cancellation of their registration and the dismissal of an appeal filed; which appeal was delayed; in both cases by three years. The petitioners have also raised a contention against the cancellation of registration as is provided under Section 29(2) of both the enactments. The petitioners’ contention is that this would run counter to the fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on any trade, occupation, or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the fundamental right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. On the individual facts, we notice that the petitioner in CWJC 11874 of 2021 was issued with an order of cancellation of registration which is dated 15.01.2021, based on a show-cause notice issued on 05.01.2021. The petitioner’s contention is that during the pandemic period, disaster struck in the family of the Director and both her in-laws and her own father died between March 2020 and June 2021. She had withdrawn from the business and she being the operational director of the company there was no business carried out in the said period. The petitioner also contends that the Goods and Services Tax related compliances were entrusted to a tax consultant; which compliance was not made and hence the registration stood cancelled as per Annexure-P/3 on 15.01.2021. The petitioner also contends that the operational director of the company was unaware of the cancellation and hence no appeal was filed. Only when she decided to restart the business, she became aware of the order passed. She immediately filed the pending returns and deposited an amount of Rs. 27,36,058/- which is evidenced by Annexure-P/4 series of receipts. An appeal too was filed as per Annexure-P/4 which admittedly was grossly delayed. Annexure-P/6 is the order passed dated 16.04.2024 which rejected the appeal on the ground of delay.

3. The petitioner in CWJC No. 11941 of 2024 is aggrieved with the proceeding initiated by a show-cause notice dated 28.12.2000 which culminated in the cancellation of registration by the final order dated 14.01.2021. The show-cause notice and the final order of cancellation of registration is enclosed along with Annexure-P/1 of the writ petition which is the appeal filed before the First Appellate Authority. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected by Annexure-P/2 order on the ground of delay. The order challenged in the appeal as we noticed was dated 14.01.2021 and the appeal was filed on 30.04.2024. The various orders by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended limitation during the pandemic period has also been annexed with Annexure-P/1 with which we shall deal a bit later. It was when the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay that the petitioner has thought it fit to challenge the vires of the provision under Section 29 of the CGST Act.

4. At the outset, we have to observe that the constitutional challenge made to the provision is a last-ditch effort, since the petitioners had not availed the statutory remedies in time and also not taken up its cause when there was a window of relief provided by way of a notification which permitted restoration of registration.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in CWJC 11874 of 2024 relied on the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Rohit Enterprises vs. Commissioner, Aurangabad & Ors.; (2024) 124 GSTR 503 which in similar circumstances restored the registration of a business; on almost identical set of facts. It is also responded, to a specific query as to why the petitioner cannot seek for a fresh registration, that the goodwill of the company would be lost.

6. Section 107 of the BGST Act permits an appeal to be filed within three months and also apply for delay condonation with satisfactory