Anish Contracter Through Proprietor 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 Superintendent, State GST, Haldwani, Uttarakhand. The Court directed that if the petitioner pays all pending dues under the GST Act, their application for restoration of GST registration may be considered liberally. The Court's reasoning was based on the submission that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment which established that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, implying that the appeal route under Section 107 was not appropriate in this context. The ratio decidendi appears to be that procedural avenues should be explored with a liberal approach when the taxpayer is willing to clear dues, especially when the initial appellate authority's jurisdiction is questionable. The Court did not explicitly quash the cancellation order but provided a pathway for its reconsideration.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the cancellation of their GST registration, which was ordered on April 17, 2021. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. They sought a writ of certiorari to quash the cancellation order and a writ of mandamus to allow them to file an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation, and for the respondent to consider it. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the same Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration order dated 17.04.2021 is liable to be quashed, given the petitioner's willingness to pay all dues, including tax, interest, and late fees? (Question of fact and law) 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 if so, whether the respondent no. 2 should be directed to consider such application in accordance with law? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by a Division Bench judgment of the Court in SPA No. 123 of 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. They relied on this precedent. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents.