M/S Chandra And Company Gstin vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate Dehradun

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before respondent no.2, the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Nainital, to ventilate their grievances. The Court directed that if the petitioner pays all pending dues under the GST Act, their application for restoration of GST registration should be considered liberally. Furthermore, the petitioner was directed to file the returns for the six months preceding the cancellation, along with the monthly returns from October 6, 2022, until the filing of their representation. The Court's reasoning implicitly acknowledges the petitioner's right to seek revocation and the need for a liberal consideration of such applications upon payment of dues, aligning with the principles of allowing businesses to regularize their compliance. The issue regarding the Commissioner not being an adjudicating authority, as raised by the petitioner, appears to have influenced the Court's approach to allow the petitioner to approach the Assistant Commissioner directly.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ application challenging the cancellation of their GST registration, which was ordered on October 6, 2022. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. They sought a writ of certiorari to quash the cancellation order and a writ of mandamus to permit them to file an application under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation, and for the respondent to consider this application. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the High Court concerning the Commissioner not being an adjudicating authority and the inapplicability of an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, to the Commissioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration order dated 06/10/2022 is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's willingness to pay all dues, including tax, interest, and late fees? (Question of fact and law, turning on principles of natural justice and statutory provisions for revocation of registration). 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of GST registration under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017, and whether the respondent No. 2 should be directed to consider such an application in accordance with law? (Question of law, turning on the interpretation and application of Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and therefore, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, does not lie to the Commissioner. They also indicated readiness to clear all dues. Revenue/State's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the learned B.H. for the State.