Ujjwal Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Poonam Verma vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before Respondent No. 3, the State Tax Officer, State Tax/GST Department, Almora Sector-1, District Almora. The petitioner is to ventilate their grievances in this application. 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 is directed to file the pending returns for the six months prior to the cancellation order, along with the monthly returns from June 17, 2022, until the filing of their representation. The Court did not explicitly decide on the legality of the cancellation order itself but provided a procedural path for resolution. The reasoning appears to be based on facilitating a resolution by allowing the petitioner to approach the original authority with a commitment to clear dues and file returns, while acknowledging the petitioner's reliance on a previous High Court judgment regarding the Commissioner's role.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ application seeking to quash the cancellation of their GST registration order dated June 17, 2022, passed by Respondent No. 3, the State Tax Officer. The petitioner also sought a direction to restore their GST registration and permit them to file pending returns. The petitioner stated their readiness to pay all applicable expenses, late fees, and dues. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the High Court which held 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. The Court considered this submission.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by Respondent No. 3 is legally sustainable, considering the petitioner's argument that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority and the appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, would not lie to the Commissioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the issue is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, dated June 20, 2022. This judgment reportedly held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, implying that the appeal mechanism under Section 107 might be inapplicable in certain contexts or that the initial order might have been passed by an inappropriate authority. The petitioner also expressed willingness to pay all dues, late fees, and expenses to facilitate the restoration of their registration and filing of returns. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or State.
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 JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS No.354 of 2023 Hon’ble Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned B.H. for the State. By filing this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of certiorari. calling for record and to quash the cancellation of GST Registration order dated 17.6.2022 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure no.2)
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to restore the GST registration of petitioner firm in its original number and permit the petitioner to submit its G.S.T returns in the web- portal of Respondent Department. The petitioner is ready to pay all the expenses along with late fee etc., if applicable under law, for this un- intentional delay.”
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
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.