M/S Shirdi Packaging 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 before the State Tax Officer, Rudrapur, Sector-2, Uttarakhand, to ventilate their grievances. 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. Furthermore, the petitioner was directed to file the returns for the six months preceding the filing of the representation, along with the monthly returns from 30.07.2022 until the date of filing the representation. The Court did not explicitly address the quashing of the cancellation order but provided a pathway for restoration. The issue of whether the Commissioner is an adjudicating authority was alluded to as a basis for the petitioner's plea, but the Court's decision focused on the procedural steps for restoration.

Facts

The petitioner, whose GST registration bore the number 05AFRPA4416J1ZJ, approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. The petitioner sought to quash an order dated 30.07.2022 that cancelled their GST registration. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay any outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. Additionally, the petitioner prayed for a direction to permit them to file an application under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation, and for the respondent to consider this application in accordance with law. The petitioner's counsel referred to a previous Division Bench judgment concerning the Commissioner not being an adjudicating authority and appeals under Section 107 not lying to the Commissioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration order dated 30.07.2022 is liable to be quashed, given the petitioner's willingness to clear all dues and the precedent set by a Division Bench judgment regarding the Commissioner's role as an adjudicating authority? 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 the respondent should be directed to consider such an application? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the issue was 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, would not lie to the Commissioner. The petitioner also indicated readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the learned Standing Counsel for the State.