Navab Ali And Company 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, Kashipur Sector - 1, Uttarakhand. The Court directed that if the petitioner pays all outstanding dues under the GST Act, their application for the restoration of GST registration should be considered liberally. Furthermore, the petitioner was directed to file all pending returns for the six months they failed to submit, along with monthly returns from January 2022 until the date of filing their representation. The Court did not explicitly quash the cancellation order but provided a path for its potential restoration. The issue regarding the Commissioner not being an adjudicating authority, as raised by the petitioner, was implicitly acknowledged by directing the petitioner to approach the Assistant Commissioner rather than pursuing an appeal to the Commissioner.

Facts

The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation of their GST registration, which was ordered on January 7, 2022. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding taxes, interest, and late fees. They also requested 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 this application. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment concerning the Commissioner not being an adjudicating authority, making an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, not maintainable before the Commissioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration order dated 07.01.2022 is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's willingness to pay all dues and file pending returns? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of provisions related to GST registration cancellation and revocation). 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to prefer 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 it liberally? (Question of law, turning on the procedural rights of a taxpayer whose registration is cancelled). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the cancellation order should be quashed as they were prepared to clear all pending dues and file all required returns. They relied on a Division Bench judgment of the same 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. This precedent was used to support the petitioner's plea for alternative recourse. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents.