M/S Shri Ram Agro Sciences PVT LTD. vs. State Tax Officer State Tax

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Respondent No. 1, the State Tax Officer, State Tax, Sector – 3, Rudrapur, Uttarakhand. This application should ventilate the petitioner's grievances within 10 days. The Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider this application and pass a speaking and reasoned order after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. This decision is to be made within 30 days from the production of a certified copy of the Court's order along with the copy of the brief. The petitioner undertakes to file these documents within 10 days. Furthermore, the Court noted that if the petitioner pays the pending dues under the GST Act, his application for restoration of GST registration may be considered liberally. The Court did not directly rule on the sustainability of the impugned notices and orders but provided a procedural remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shri Ram Agro Sciences Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of Registration dated 17.02.2022 and an Order for Cancellation of Registration dated 26.02.2022, both issued by the State Tax Officer, Rudrapur. The petitioner sought quashing of these notices and orders, and a direction to revive its GST registration. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, 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 Court considered this submission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of Registration dated 17.02.2022 and the Order for Cancellation of Registration dated 26.02.2022, issued by the State Tax Officer, are legally sustainable, particularly in light of the petitioner's submission that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority and the applicability of Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by a Division Bench judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, dated 20.06.2022. This judgment purportedly 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. Based on this precedent, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned notices and orders and have its registration revived. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents.