Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate Dehradun
Held
The Court held that the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which established that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority. Consequently, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, would not be maintainable before the Commissioner. 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 clears all pending dues under the GST Act, their application for restoration of GST registration should be considered liberally. The ratio decidendi is that appeals under Section 107 are not maintainable before the Commissioner if the Commissioner is not the adjudicating authority.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of their GST registration order dated 05.02.2022. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the cancellation order and a writ of mandamus to permit them to file an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation, and for the respondent to consider this application. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the High Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Commissioner is an adjudicating authority for the purpose of appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the issue is covered by a Division Bench judgment of the High 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, would not lie to the Commissioner. Revenue's argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or respondents regarding this issue.
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 JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS No. 3067 of 2022
Hon’ble S.K. Mishra, J.
Mr. Tarun Pande and Mr. Ashish Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Lakhera the learned Brief Holder for the respondents.
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 05.02.2022 (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 GSTIN05ABCPG2338JIZZ of the petitioner and further direct the respondent no. 2 to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law.”
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitione
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.