Dinesh Kumar Goyal vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr
Held
The Court held that the officer who passed the order for cancellation of registration is indeed the appropriate authority to consider an application for revocation of that cancellation. The Court found no basis to accept the petitioner's interpretation that the adjudicating authority under Section 107 could not be the same officer who issued the cancellation order. The Court reasoned that the statute prescribes no other forum for filing such revocation applications, and the officer's designation does not change when considering a revocation application against their own cancellation order. Given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order of cancellation within two weeks from the date of the judgment, subject to statutory formalities. The appellate authority was directed to consider and dispose of the appeal expeditiously on merits, without raising the point of limitation.
Facts
The petitioner, Shri Dinesh Kumar Goyal, Proprietor of M/s. Dec International, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 18, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Shyambazar Division. This order rejected the petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of its GST registration, which had been initially cancelled on November 9, 2020. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court against this rejection order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner, who passed the order for cancellation of registration, is the appropriate authority to consider an application for revocation of that cancellation, as contemplated under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner attempted to interpret Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, suggesting that the adjudicating authority referred to therein cannot be the same authority that passed the order for cancellation of registration. Revenue's contention: The Court did not record any specific argument from the revenue's side regarding this interpretation. However, the Court's reasoning implicitly addresses the revenue's position by upholding the Assistant Commissioner's authority to consider the revocation application.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPA 19992 OF 2022 19.09.2022
Sl no. 17 Shri Dinesh Kumar Goyal, Proprietor of M/s. Dec International. Ct no. 2
- Vs - P.M.
Union of India & Anr.
Mr. Arijit Chakrabarti,
Mr. N. Chowdhury,
Mr. P. Bera,
Mr. D. Sharma
… for the petitioner
Mr. K.K. Maiti, Ms. Ekta Sinha
…. For respondent No. 2
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18th May, 2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Shyambazar Division being annexure P/5 to the writ petition, rejecting the petitioner’s application for revocation of cancellation of its registration passed on 09.11.2020. On a plain reading of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, I find that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the said Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to the appellate authority as prescribed and within the time and date on which such decision or order was communicated to the person.
2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner makes an attempt to interpret the aforesaid Section by contend
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.