M/S Jay Maa Renuka Construction And Supplier 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 before Respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner, State GST, Uttarkashi. The petitioner was directed to submit six defaulted returns, returns from the date of cancellation until the present date, and any outstanding dues. The Court reasoned that if the petitioner fulfills these conditions, including paying all pending dues under the GST Act and withdrawing the appeal as undertaken, their application for restoration of GST registration should be considered liberally. The Court did not explicitly decide the legal question regarding the Commissioner's adjudicatory role but provided a procedural path for the petitioner to seek restoration.
Facts
The petitioner, seeking restoration of their GST registration, approached the High Court via a writ petition. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 03.03.2022. 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 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 petitioner also undertook to withdraw an appeal pending before the Appellate Authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, lies to the Commissioner, given that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority? The petitioner argued that the Division Bench of this Court, in SPA No. 123 of 2022 dated 20.06.2022, had already held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority. Consequently, an appeal under Section 107 of the Act would not be maintainable before the Commissioner. The petitioner relied on this precedent. The State, through its learned Brief Holder, did not record any specific arguments against this contention.
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. 145 of 2023 Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Shri Ashutoshi Posti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Tarun Lakhera, learned Brief Holder for the State. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:-
“i. 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.”
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, appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 shall not lie to the Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to withdraw his appeal pending before the Appellate Authority before fil
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.