Uma Construction Through Its Authorized Signatory, Shri Deepak Singh vs. The State Of U.P.Through The Secretary Institutional Finance And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020, issued under Section 172 of the Act, was applicable. The Court noted that the learned Standing Counsel did not dispute the validity or applicability of this notification. Consequently, the orders dated February 25, 2020, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeals) First, Commercial Tax, Jhansi, and the order dated January 8, 2020, passed by the respondent No. 2 (Assessing Authority), were set aside. The Court directed that the application filed by the petitioner for revocation of the cancellation order dated September 19, 2019, be decided afresh in accordance with law within 15 days from the production of a copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that statutory clarifications or removal of difficulties orders, when issued retrospectively, must be given effect to, overriding previous orders that were based on the pre-clarification position.

Facts

The petitioner, Uma Construction, had its GST registration cancelled by the Assessing Authority on September 19, 2019, under Section 29(2)(c) of the GST Act. The petitioner applied for revocation of this cancellation. This application was rejected on January 8, 2020. Subsequently, a First Appeal filed under Section 107 of the Act was dismissed on February 25, 2020. With no Tribunal in place, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner argued that subsequent to these orders, the Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020, issued under Section 172 of the Act, rendered the previous orders unsustainable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the orders of the Assessing Authority and the First Appellate Authority are sustainable in light of the Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020, issued under Section 172 of the Act? Petitioner's contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020, specifically Clause 2, clarifies the period for filing an application for revocation of cancellation of registration. This order provides that for cancellations made up to June 12, 2020, the date for calculating the thirty-day period for filing the revocation application shall be the later of the date of service of the cancellation order or August 31, 2020. This retrospective clarification, the petitioner argued, made the earlier orders unsustainable. Respondent's contention: The learned Standing Counsel did not dispute the Gazette Notification.