Gropu Of Devbhoomi vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State Goods And Service Tax Dehradun

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, Tanakpur, District - Champawat, Uttarakhand. The Court directed that if the petitioner pays any outstanding dues under the GST Act, their application for restoration of GST registration should be considered liberally. Furthermore, the Court directed the petitioner to file the pending returns for the six months preceding the order, along with the monthly returns from 01.02.2022 until the filing of their representation. The Court implicitly acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the cancellation order by allowing them to pursue restoration, and by referencing the Division Bench judgment, it suggested a procedural irregularity in the initial action. The Court did not explicitly decide on the validity of the cancellation order itself but provided a path for resolution. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, through their counsel, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order dated 01.02.2022 passed by respondent no. 2, which cancelled the petitioner's GST Registration No. 05CMKPK9974M2Z3. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash this cancellation order and a writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to consider their application for restoration of the GST registration. The petitioner also requested any other relief deemed fit by the Court. The core of the petitioner's argument was that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 01.02.2022, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to file an application for restoration of GST registration and for the same to be considered liberally? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, dated 20.06.2022. This judgment 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 relied on this precedent to argue for the quashing of the cancellation order and for the opportunity to file an application for restoration. Respondents' Contentions: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents.