Naim Ahamad vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before Respondent No. 1, the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax. The Court directed that if the petitioner pays any outstanding dues under the GST Act, their application for restoration of GST registration should be considered liberally. The Court's reasoning appears to be influenced by the petitioner's submission regarding the Division Bench judgment, suggesting a procedural path for resolution rather than a definitive ruling on the legality of the cancellation itself. The specific finding on whether the Commissioner is an adjudicating authority is not explicitly detailed, but the direction implies a need for the petitioner to approach the Assistant Commissioner.
Facts
The petitioner, seeking to quash a show cause notice for cancellation of GST registration dated February 2, 2022, and a subsequent order for cancellation of registration dated March 2, 2022, both issued by Respondent No. 1 (Assistant Commissioner, State Tax), filed a writ petition. The petitioner also sought a direction to revive their GST registration. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of the cancellation proceedings and the appropriate authority for redressal. The petitioner 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 under the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, and consequently, whether an appeal under Section 107 of the Act lies to the Commissioner? (Question of law). The petitioner contended 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 appeals under Section 107 would not lie to the Commissioner. The revenue (State) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment provided.
Sections Cited
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. 2762 of 2022
Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi and Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned Brief Holder for the State. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed as follows:- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice for cancellation of Registration bearing Reference No. 05DXOPA9907G1ZB dated 02.02.2022 issued by the Respondent no. 1. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order for cancellation of Registration bearing Reference No. ZA0503220005928 dated 02.03.2022 issued by the respondent no. 1. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent to revive the GST Registration of the petitioner. iv. Issue any other writ, order or direction and/or allow any other consequential relief as expedient in law, on the facts and circumstances of the case.
It is submitt
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.