Kripal Singh Aswal vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax
Held
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment. Based on this precedent, the Court disposed of the writ petition. It granted the petitioner liberty to file an application before Respondent No. 3 (Superintendent, State Goods & Service Tax, Almora) to ventilate their grievances. The Court further directed that if the petitioner pays all pending dues under the GST Act, their application for restoration of GST registration should be considered liberally. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to file the returns for the six months preceding the cancellation order, along with the monthly returns from 17.01.2022 until the filing of the representation. The Court did not expressly decide on the validity of the show cause notice or the cancellation order in isolation but provided a procedural path for resolution.
Facts
The petitioner, whose GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 17.01.2022 issued by Respondent No. 3 (Superintendent, State Goods & Service Tax, Almora), challenged this order and a prior show cause notice dated 01.12.2021, also issued by Respondent No. 3. The petitioner sought quashing of these notices and the cancellation order, and a direction to revive their GST registration. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and therefore, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, would not lie to the Commissioner. This argument was based on a previous Division Bench judgment of the same High Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Commissioner is an adjudicating authority under the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, for the purpose of an appeal under Section 107. 2. Whether the order for cancellation of GST registration and the preceding show cause notice issued by the Superintendent are valid. The petitioner contended that the issue is covered by a Division Bench judgment of the Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority and thus an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, does not lie to the Commissioner. The revenue or State did not record any arguments in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
SL. No.
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS No. 383 of 2023
Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Mr. Yogesh Upadhyay and Mr. P. C. Petshali, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed as follows:- i. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 01.12.2021 (Annexure No. 3) issued by the respondent no. 3. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order for cancellation of Registration bearing reference no. ZA0501220122875 dated 17.01.2022 (Annexure No. 2) issued by the respondent no. 3. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to revive the GST registration of the petitioner.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in SPA No. 123 of 2022 on 20.06.2022 wherein
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 Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.