Harish Chandra Dwivedi vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to make a manual application for revocation of the cancellation of their GST number within ten days. This application is to be made before respondent no. 2, the Assistant Commissioner, State GST, Pithoragarh Sector – 1, Uttarakhand. The Court directed that if the petitioner pays any pending dues under the GST Act, their application for restoration of GST registration should be considered liberally. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that the tax liability shown in the impugned order was NIL, implying no revenue demand. The Court also referenced a Division Bench judgment concerning the non-adjudicatory role of the Commissioner for appeals under Section 107, though this point was not directly adjudicated upon as the matter was disposed of with liberty to apply for revocation.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of their GST registration order dated May 18, 2022. The petitioner sought quashing of this order and a direction to permit them to file an application for revocation of the cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay any outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. The petitioner also highlighted that the impugned order showed a NIL tax liability, suggesting no revenue demand existed. The petition was filed before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration order dated May 18, 2022, is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's readiness to clear all dues and the NIL tax liability shown in the order? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to prefer an application for revocation of the cancellation of GST registration under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, and whether the respondent no. 2 should be directed to consider it in accordance with law? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment in "Vinod Kumar Vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Others," which held that 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 petitioner also contended that the NIL tax liability in the impugned order indicated no revenue demand against them. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State/Revenue.