Kavindra Singh vs. Superintendent Tax Srinagar Roorkee
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the State Tax Officer, Goods & Services Tax, Srinagar/Roorkee, Uttarakhand, to ventilate her grievances. The Court directed that if the petitioner pays all pending dues under the GST Act, her application for restoration of GST registration may be considered liberally. Furthermore, the petitioner was directed to file the returns for the six months she failed to submit, along with monthly returns from the date of cancellation until the present date. The Court's reasoning was based on the precedent set by the Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which established that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority for appeals under Section 107. The ratio decidendi is that procedural avenues should be explored with a liberal approach to restoration when dues are cleared and compliance is assured.
Facts
The petitioner, Mrs. Prabha Naithani, sought a writ of certiorari to quash the cancellation of her GST registration order dated August 19, 2021, and a writ of mandamus to permit her to file an application under Section 40 of the CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation. The petitioner stated readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. The petitioner's GSTIN was GSTIN/UIN05EZRPS0074NIZMT. The respondents are represented by Mr. Tarun Lakhera, Brief Holder.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration order dated August 19, 2021, is liable to be quashed. 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application under Section 40 of the CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation of her GST registration. 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, does not lie to the Commissioner. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 40, 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. 21 of 2023
Hon’ble S.K. Mishra, J.
Mrs. Prabha Naithani, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Lakhera the learned Brief Holder for the respondents.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed as follows:-
“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record of the case and quash the cancellation of GST Registration order dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure no. 2) as petitioner is ready to pay all the balance tax, interest on it and late fee if any.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus permitting the petitioner to prefer an application U/S 40 of the CGST Act 2017, for filing an application for revocation of the cancellation of the GST No. GSTIN/UIN05EZRPS0074NIZMT of the petitioner and further direct the respondent no. 1 to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law.”
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this C
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.