Jai Ram And Sons 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 respondent no. 2, the Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax. The Court directed that if the petitioner pays any dues pending against them under the GST Act, their application for the restoration of GST registration may be considered liberally. The Court's reasoning was based on the precedent set by the Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which established that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority. While the specific issue of quashing the cancellation order was not directly decided, the Court provided a procedural path for the petitioner to seek restoration of their registration by clearing dues and filing an application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, whose GST registration bore the number 05AUFPS7518C1ZO, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of their GST registration by an order dated July 11, 2022. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay any outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. They sought a writ of certiorari to quash the cancellation order and a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2, the Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax, to permit them to file an application for revocation of the cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, and to consider such application in accordance with the law. The petitioner also sought any other relief deemed fit by the Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by the order dated July 11, 2022, is liable to be quashed. This issue turns on the interpretation of the CGST Act, 2017, particularly concerning the powers of the Commissioner and the procedure for cancellation and revocation of registration. The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, implying that an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, to the Commissioner would not lie. The State's contentions were not recorded in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 30, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
SL. No.
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS No. 3177 of 2022
Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Mr. Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned Brief Holder for the State. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed as follows:- i. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record of the case and quash the cancellation of GST Registration order dated 11.07.2022 (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition) as petitioner is ready to pay all the balance tax, interest on it and late fee if any.
ii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus permitting the petitioner to prefer an application U/S 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, for filing an application for revocation of the cancellation of the GSTIN 05AUFPS7518C1ZO of the petitioner and further direct the respondent no. 2 to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law.
iii. Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, in the c
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.