Mayank Sikarwar Gstin - 09Cczps6193R1Zv vs. State Of U.P. Through Its Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, U.P. Lucknow And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the orders of the Assessing Authority dated January 10, 2020, and the Appellate Order dated February 13, 2020, were not sustainable in view of the Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020. The Court noted that the learned Standing Counsel did not dispute the validity or applicability of this notification. The reasoning was that the Removal of Difficulties Order, 2020, provided a beneficial clarification for taxpayers whose registration was cancelled, extending the period for filing revocation applications. The ratio decidendi is that subsequent remedial statutory orders, particularly those issued to remove difficulties, should be applied retrospectively or to pending matters to grant relief. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed that the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation, filed on December 7, 2019, be decided in accordance with law within 15 days from the date of production of a copy of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, Mayank Sikarwar, had his Goods and Services Tax registration cancelled by the Assessing Authority on September 19, 2019, under Section 29(2)(c) of the GST Act, 2017. He subsequently filed an application for revocation of this cancellation. This application was rejected on January 10, 2020. The petitioner then filed a First Appeal under Section 107 of the Act, which was dismissed on February 13, 2020. Due to the absence of a Tribunal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner's counsel presented a Gazette Notification dated June 25, 2020, issued under Section 172 of the Act.

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 petitioner argued that the aforementioned Removal of Difficulties Order, 2020, specifically the clarification regarding the calculation of the period for filing an application for revocation of cancellation of registration, rendered the previous orders unsustainable. The petitioner highlighted that the order provided for a later date (August 31, 2020) to be considered for calculating the thirty-day period for filing such applications, where the cancellation order was passed up to June 12, 2020. Respondent's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent did not dispute the Gazette Notification.