J M S Construction vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Dehradun

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Assistant Commissioner, GST, Pithoragarh. This application should be accompanied by six months of defaulted returns and returns from August 24, 2021, until the date of filing. The petitioner is also required to pay any outstanding dues under the GST Act. The Court directed that if the petitioner clears all pending dues, their application for the restoration of GST registration should be considered liberally. The Court implicitly acknowledged the petitioner's right to seek revocation and directed the respondent to consider it, subject to compliance with the payment and filing requirements. The Court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's stated willingness to regularize their compliance and the precedent cited regarding the Commissioner's role.

Facts

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the cancellation of their GST registration, which was ordered on August 24, 2021. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. They also sought a direction to permit them to file an application for revocation of the cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, and for the respondent to consider it in accordance with law. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment concerning appeals to the Commissioner, who was held not to be an adjudicating authority. The Court considered the petitioner's submission and the procedural history.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration order dated 24.08.2021 is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's willingness to clear all dues? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of relevant GST provisions regarding cancellation and restoration). 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of GST registration cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, and whether the respondent should consider such an application? (Question of law, concerning procedural rights and administrative discretion under the CGST Act). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the issue was covered by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, implying that appeals under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, to the Commissioner would not lie. They are ready to pay all outstanding dues. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the learned Brief Holder for the State.