Chhatwal Restauratnat Gstin 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, State Goods & Services Tax, Haldwani Sector - 2, Uttarakhand, to ventilate their grievances. The Court directed that if the petitioner clears all pending dues under the GST Act, their application for the restoration of GST registration should be considered liberally. Furthermore, the Court mandated that the petitioner must file the returns for the six months they failed to submit, along with all monthly returns from June 10, 2022, until the date of filing their representation. The Court did not expressly decide on the validity of the cancellation order itself but provided a procedural path for its potential revocation. The issue of whether the Commissioner is an adjudicating authority, as raised by the petitioner, was implicitly acknowledged by directing the petitioner to approach the Assistant Commissioner.

Facts

The petitioner, whose GST registration bore the number 05DBDPS1593H1ZH, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of their GST registration order dated June 10, 2022. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. They sought a direction to prefer an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation and for the respondent to consider this application. The petitioner contended that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, thus an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, would not lie to the Commissioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration order dated June 10, 2022, is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's willingness to pay all dues and the applicability of a prior Division Bench judgment? 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation of their GST registration, and whether the respondent should be directed to consider such an application? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order should be quashed as they were prepared to clear all pending tax liabilities, interest, and late fees. They relied on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which established that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, implying that appeals under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, should not be directed to the Commissioner. This precedent, according to the petitioner, supported their plea for alternative recourse. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents.