M/S Dhanbir Singh Bhandari 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 Assistant Commissioner, GST, Rishikesh. This application should be accompanied by the filing of defaulted returns, returns from the date of cancellation until the present date, and payment of any outstanding dues. The Court directed that if the petitioner clears 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 procedural path for restoration. The issue regarding the Commissioner not being an adjudicating authority for appeals under Section 107 was acknowledged as covered by a previous Division Bench judgment, influencing the Court's approach to dispose of the matter by allowing the petitioner to pursue restoration.

Facts

The petitioner, whose GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 12.05.2022, approached the High Court seeking quashing of the cancellation order and a direction to permit filing an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. The petitioner 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. The Court was informed that a Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022 covered this issue.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration order dated 12.05.2022 is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's willingness to pay all dues, including tax, interest, and late fees, and in light of the Division Bench judgment stating the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority for appeals under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017? Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the cancellation order should be quashed and sought permission to file an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017. Relied on the Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, implying that appeals under Section 107 would not be maintainable before the Commissioner. Revenue/State: No arguments recorded for the revenue or State in the provided judgment.