M/S Sandeep Painuly 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 manually before respondent no. 2, the Assistant Commissioner, Rishikesh. 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 should be considered liberally. The Court's reasoning implicitly acknowledges the petitioner's right to seek revocation and the need for a procedural path to address the cancellation, especially in light of the cited precedent regarding the Commissioner's role. The operative direction is to allow the petitioner to pursue the revocation process, subject to compliance with payment and filing obligations.

Facts

The petitioner, whose GST registration bore the number 05BQDPP0709H1Z3, approached the High Court seeking to quash the cancellation of their GST registration order dated January 6, 2022. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. Additionally, the petitioner sought a direction to prefer an application under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation and for the respondent no. 2 (Assistant Commissioner, Rishikesh) to consider such an application in accordance with law. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment concerning the Commissioner not being an adjudicating authority, rendering an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, to the Commissioner invalid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration order dated January 6, 2022, is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's willingness to clear all dues, including tax, interest, and late fees? 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 respondent no. 2 should be directed to consider it? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and therefore, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, to the Commissioner would not lie. The petitioner is ready to pay all outstanding dues. Revenue/State's Contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the State/Revenue in the provided judgment.