Devendra Prasad vs. Assistant Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument regarding the Commissioner not being an adjudicating authority but did not directly rule on the validity of the impugned notices and order based on that ground. Instead, the Court focused on the alternative remedy available to the petitioner. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application for revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, in terms of Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, within 21 days, waiving the limitation period. The petitioner was also instructed to comply with other provisions of Section 30, including submitting returns for the six defaulted months and any subsequent completed months. The Court stated that if any dues are found, and the petitioner pays them, the revenue should consider his case liberally and dispose of the application within 30 days. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Devendra Prasad, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging a Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of Registration dated 06.11.2020 and an Order for Cancellation of Registration dated 03.12.2020, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods & Service Tax, Sector 6, Dehradun. The petitioner sought quashing of these notices and orders, and a direction to revive his GST registration. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the High Court stating the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority and thus an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 would not lie to the Commissioner. The revenue contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the UK GST Act, requiring him to file an application for revocation of cancellation and to file returns for the six months he failed to upload them.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of Registration and the Order for Cancellation of Registration are liable to be quashed on the grounds that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022. 2. Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancelled GST registration. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue of the Commissioner not being an adjudicating authority, as decided in SPA No. 123 of 2022, should apply, implying the impugned actions were invalid. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that Section 30 of the UK GST Act provides an alternative forum for the petitioner to seek revocation of the cancellation of his GST registration, provided he files appropriate returns for the six months he failed to do so.