M/S Uttarakhand Good Carrier Gstin vs. The State Of Uttarakhand

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a manual application for restoration of GST registration before respondent no. 1. The petitioner is also required to submit the six defaulted returns, returns from the date of cancellation until the present date, and any outstanding dues. The Court directed 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 rule on the petitioner's contention regarding the Commissioner not being an adjudicating authority, but implicitly acknowledged the existence of an alternative remedy. The specific question of whether the Commissioner is an adjudicating authority under Section 107 was not directly decided in this order, but the path forward for the petitioner was clarified.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash a cancellation order dated June 6, 2022, and to direct the respondents to revive their GST registration. The petitioner 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 State contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Central GST Act, which allowed for filing an application for revocation of GST cancellation, subject to filing appropriate returns for the six months preceding the cancellation as per Rule 23.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Commissioner is an adjudicating authority for the purpose of appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, and if not, what is the consequence for appeals filed before the Commissioner? (This issue is framed based on the petitioner's submission regarding a prior Division Bench judgment). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, dated June 20, 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. Revenue's Contention: The State argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Central GST Act, 2017, to file an application for revocation of the GST cancellation. This remedy is conditional upon the petitioner filing 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.