Machan Restaurant Gstin vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate Dehradun
Held
The Court held that the appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, would not lie to the Commissioner, as the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority. This finding was based on a previous Division Bench judgment of the Court. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax, Nainital, Uttarakhand. The Court directed that if the petitioner pays all pending dues under the GST Act, their application for restoration of GST registration should be considered liberally. Furthermore, the petitioner was directed to file the returns for the six months preceding the cancellation order, along with the monthly returns from 08.08.2021 until the filing of their representation. The petitioner also undertook to withdraw their appeal filed before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals).
Facts
The petitioner, whose GST registration bore the number 05CVXPS1250G1Z9, had their registration cancelled by an order dated 08.08.2021. The petitioner sought to quash this cancellation, expressing readiness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, and late fees. They also prayed for a direction to the respondent no. 3 to decide their appeal on merits and for permission to file an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, with a direction to respondent no. 2 to consider it. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment regarding the Commissioner not being an adjudicating authority for appeals under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, lies to the Commissioner when the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority? The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by a Division Bench judgment of the 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, would not lie to the Commissioner. The revenue's contentions were not recorded in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 30
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 JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS No. 3373 of 2022
Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Mr. Ashish Agarwal, 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 suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record of the case and quash the cancellation of GST Registration order dated 08.08.2021 (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition) as petitioner is ready to pay all the balance tax, interest on it and late fee if any.
ii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to decide the appeal in its merits.
iii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus permitting the petitioner to prefer an application U/S 30 of the CGST Act 2017, for filing an application for revocation of the cancellation of the GSTIN 05CVXPS1250G1Z9 of the petitioner and further direct the respondent no. 2 to consider the
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.