Sharma Construction Work Gstin vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax

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, Nainital, Uttarakhand. The Court directed that the petitioner's grievances should be ventilated in this application. Furthermore, the Court stipulated that if the petitioner pays all pending dues under the GST Act, their application for the restoration of GST registration should be considered liberally. The Court also directed the petitioner to file the returns for the six months they failed to submit, along with monthly returns from December 2019 until the filing of their representation. The issue regarding the Commissioner not being an adjudicating authority, as cited by the petitioner, formed the basis for directing the petitioner to approach the Assistant Commissioner rather than pursuing an appeal to the Commissioner.

Facts

The petitioner, whose GST registration bore the GSTIN 05ADKPS0553M1Z8, sought to quash the cancellation order dated December 6, 2019, passed by the respondent authorities. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. Additionally, the petitioner requested a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to permit them to file an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation and to consider such an application in accordance with the law. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the High Court concerning the Commissioner not being an adjudicating authority and the inapplicability of an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, to the Commissioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration order dated December 6, 2019, is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's willingness to clear all pending dues, including tax, interest, and late fees? 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation of their GST registration under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, and whether the respondent authorities are obligated to consider such an application? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order should be quashed as they are prepared to settle all outstanding liabilities. They relied on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, dated June 20, 2022, which held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and therefore, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, does not lie to the Commissioner. This precedent was used to support the petitioner's plea for a direction to consider their application for revocation. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents.