M/S Zuni Enterprises Gstin vs. Commissioner State Goods And Servicestax Commissionerate Derhadun

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition. It granted the petitioner liberty to file an application before the Sales Tax Officer, Rudrapur, Sector-2, Uttarakhand. The petitioner was also directed to submit the six defaulted returns, returns from the date of cancellation until the present date, and any outstanding dues. The Court held 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 quash the cancellation order but provided a pathway for restoration. The issue regarding whether the Commissioner is an adjudicating authority was alluded to but not directly decided in the context of this specific cancellation order, as the matter was disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the Sales Tax Officer.

Facts

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the cancellation of their GST registration, which was ordered on May 12, 2022. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, and late fees. They also sought a direction to permit them to file an application for revocation of the cancellation under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017, and for the respondent to consider this application. The petitioner's counsel argued 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. This argument was based on a previous Division Bench judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration order dated 12.05.2022 is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's willingness to clear all dues? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and statutory provisions related to GST registration cancellation and revocation). 2. Whether the petitioner can 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 is bound to consider it? (Question of law, turning on Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contentions: The cancellation order should be quashed as the petitioner is prepared to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. The petitioner should be allowed to file a revocation application under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017, and the respondent should consider it. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, implying that an appeal to the Commissioner under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, might not be the appropriate recourse. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.