M/S Excellent Garments 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 the Assistant Commissioner, SGST, Sector-1, Haldwani, Uttarakhand, ventilating 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 Court directed the petitioner to file the returns for the six months preceding the cancellation, which they failed to submit, along with the monthly returns from 22.01.2022 until the filing of their representation. The Court implicitly acknowledged the petitioner's willingness to pay dues and the procedural avenue for seeking revocation, aligning with the spirit of the cited Division Bench judgment without directly quashing the cancellation order. The issue of whether the Commissioner is an adjudicating authority was not directly decided in relation to the cancellation itself but informed the procedural direction given.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ application challenging the cancellation of their GST registration order dated 22/01/2022. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. They sought a direction to allow 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 in accordance with the law. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the High 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, would not lie to the Commissioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration order dated 22/01/2022 is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's willingness to pay all dues and the applicability of the Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022? 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of GST registration cancellation under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017, and whether the respondent should be directed to consider it? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the cancellation order should be quashed as they are prepared to clear all pending tax liabilities, interest, and late fees. They relied on the Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which established that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, implying that appeals to the Commissioner under Section 107 might be inappropriate in certain contexts, and that the current situation warrants a different procedural approach. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.