Manbeer Singh Bighana vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST Commissionerate Dehradun
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a manual application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation before the concerned respondent (Respondent No. 1). The petitioner was also directed to submit the six defaulted returns, returns from the date of cancellation until the present date, and any outstanding dues. The Court held that if the petitioner pays all pending dues under the GST Act, their application for the restoration of GST registration may be considered liberally. The Court did not explicitly quash the cancellation order but provided a pathway for its potential restoration. The issue regarding the Commissioner not being an adjudicating authority under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, while mentioned, was not the primary basis for the final order, which focused on the alternative remedy. The Court's decision was based on facilitating a resolution through the prescribed procedural channels, subject to compliance by the petitioner.
Facts
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the cancellation of their GST registration, which was ordered on March 3, 2022. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment holding that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, thus an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 would not lie to the Commissioner. The revenue contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Central GST Act, requiring the filing of an application for revocation of cancellation and submission of returns for the preceding six months, which the petitioner had failed to do as per Rule 23.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's willingness to clear all dues and the applicability of a previous Division Bench judgment regarding the Commissioner's adjudicatory powers under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Central GST Act and Rule 23 of the relevant rules for revocation of GST registration cancellation, requiring the filing of pending returns and payment of dues? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, dated June 20, 2022, which held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, implying that an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 to the Commissioner would be invalid. The petitioner also stated readiness to pay all outstanding amounts. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Central GST Act. This remedy requires the petitioner to file an application for revocation of cancellation and to file appropriate returns for the six months preceding the cancellation, as stipulated by Rule 23 of the relevant rules, which the petitioner had failed to do.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 30, Rule 23
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. 123 of 2023
Hon’ble S.K. Mishra, J.
Mr. Ashutosh Posti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:- 1. “Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record of the case and quash the cancellation of GST Registration order dated 03.03.2022 (Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition) as petitioner is ready to pay all the balance tax, interest on it and late fee if any.
Issue a suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper, so the business of the petitioner company may be carry out and the company may be saved from liquidation.” 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 this Court has held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and, therefore
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.