Vipin Kumar Agarwal Through Its Sole Proprietor vs. The Commissioner State Tax

Held

The Court followed the precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench in WPMS No. 2324 of 2022, which in turn relied on a Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022. The Division Bench had held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and consequently, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, does not lie to the Commissioner. Based on this, the Court disposed of the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to file an application before the Superintendent, State GST, to ventilate their grievances regarding the cancellation of their GST registrations. The Court further observed that if the petitioners pay their dues under the GST Act and have already filed their returns, their application for restoration of GST registration may be considered liberally by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Goods & Service Tax, Dehradun, keeping in view the observations made in the earlier order dated 22.09.2022 in WPMS No. 2324 of 2022. The issue of whether the cancellation itself was justified on merits was not directly decided but was remitted for consideration upon application.

Facts

The petitioners, Ankur S. Aggarwal & Co., Vikram Singh, and Vipin Kumar Agarwal, have filed writ petitions challenging the cancellation of their GST registrations. The cancellations were based on the ground that the petitioners had not filed their returns for a continuous period of six months. The Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously dealt with similar grievances in WPMS No. 2324 of 2022, relying on a Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022. That judgment held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority and thus an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, does not lie to the Commissioner. The Co-ordinate Bench had permitted the petitioner to file an application before the Superintendent, State GST, for restoration of registration, with a direction for liberal consideration if dues were paid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Commissioner, State Tax, is an adjudicating authority under the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, for the purpose of an appeal under Section 107? The petitioners argued, relying on a Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022, that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority and therefore, an appeal under Section 107 does not lie to the Commissioner. The respondents did not record any specific argument on this point, but the Court's reference to the prior judgment implies the issue was considered. 2. Whether the cancellation of GST registration on the ground of non-filing of returns for six months, without affording a proper opportunity, is valid? The petitioners contended that their GST registrations were cancelled on this ground. The Court, by following the precedent set by its Co-ordinate and Division Benches, implicitly addressed the procedural fairness and the appropriate forum for grievance redressal.