M/S Tomer Enterprises Through Its Proprietor vs. State Tax Officer Sector 3 And Other Old Building First Floor Roshnabad Haridwar

Held

The Court held that the writ application was maintainable because the petitioner was left without a statutory remedy, referencing its prior judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022. This judgment established that officers functioning under the Commissioner are not adjudicating authorities, meaning appeals under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act would not lie before the Commissioner. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an appropriate application before the Sales Tax Officer (STO) GST, Haridwar. The petitioner was directed to submit returns for the defaulted period and also for the period from February 23, 2022, until the present date. If any tax was due, it was to be deposited before the STO. Upon compliance, the STO was directed to consider the petitioner's application for GST registration liberally. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by an order dated February 23, 2022, for failing to submit monthly GST returns for six months. The petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, seeking to quash the cancellation order and praying for a direction to allow them to file an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner stated readiness to pay all balance tax, interest, and late fees. The Court noted a previous judgment (SPA No. 123 of 2022) which held that officers functioning under the Commissioner are not adjudicating authorities, and thus appeals under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act would not lie before the Commissioner. This left the petitioner without a statutory remedy, making the writ application maintainable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ application is maintainable given the petitioner's lack of a statutory remedy under the GST Act, as per the Court's prior ruling in SPA No. 123 of 2022? 2. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration order dated February 23, 2022, should be quashed, and if the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that their GST registration was cancelled and they were left without a statutory remedy because officers of the GST Department are not considered adjudicating authorities, rendering appeals under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act invalid. They expressed willingness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees, and sought permission to file an application for revocation of cancellation. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue or State.