Prithavi Raj Chufal vs. The Commissioner State Tax

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to file a fresh application under Section 80 of the Act before the Competent Authority/Commissioner, Sales Tax within two weeks. The Court further directed that if such an application is filed along with a certified copy of the order, the said authority shall consider it and take a decision within three weeks thereafter. Additionally, if the petitioner moves an application for revocation of the cancellation of GST registration within two weeks, the competent authority shall also consider it as per law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court did not explicitly decide on the merits of the installment or revocation applications but provided a procedural path for their consideration, relying on previous High Court orders in similar cases. The reasoning was based on facilitating the petitioner's compliance and restoring business operations, which would ultimately benefit revenue.

Facts

The petitioner, Prithavi Raj Chufal, a small Government contractor, had his GST registrations cancelled for non-filing of returns. The cancellations occurred on March 18, 2020, and July 17, 2021. Proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act for unpaid dues for FY 2019-20 resulted in a demand of Rs. 3,25,666. Subsequently, a recovery certificate for Rs. 6,02,486 was issued. Due to financial hardship, the petitioner applied under Section 80 of the CGST/SGST Act for payment in 24 monthly installments. He had already deposited Rs. 2,00,000. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Commissioner, State Tax, Haldwani, to decide his installment application and a writ of certiorari to quash the cancellation orders or a mandamus to allow revocation of cancellation, subject to filing pending returns and paying dues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the consideration of his application for payment of GST dues in installments under Section 80 of the CGST/SGST Act, and if so, within what timeframe? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the consideration of his application for revocation of cancelled GST registrations under Section 30 of the CGST/SGST Act, despite the limitation period, and if so, within what timeframe? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Court has previously allowed similar petitions directing consideration of installment applications under Section 80 and revocation applications under Section 30. He cited Writ Petition (M/B) No. 176 of 2025 (Web Docorina vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax/State GST and others) and Writ Petition (M/B) 487 of 2025 (M/S Suraj Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Rudraprayag) as precedents. He argued that the cancellation of registration is causing irreparable loss and that allowing installments and revocation would benefit public revenue. Respondent's arguments: The respondent-State agreed that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the referred orders. However, they submitted that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 80 before the Assistant Commissioner, Pithorogarh, and suggested he should file it before the Competent Authority/Commissioner, Sales Tax.