Rakesh Ramaashray Ray Gstin vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate Dehradun

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the respondent no. 2, the Assistant Commissioner, State GST. The Court directed that if the petitioner pays any outstanding dues under the GST Act, their application for the restoration of GST registration should be considered liberally. The Court's reasoning appears to be influenced by the petitioner's submission that the matter was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment, which established that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority and thus appeals under Section 107 would not lie to them. While not explicitly addressing the legality of the cancellation order itself, the Court provided a procedural path for the petitioner to seek restoration by fulfilling their financial obligations. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the primary focus was on facilitating the restoration process rather than adjudicating the validity of the cancellation order on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, whose GST registration bore the GSTIN 05ATGPR4414A1Z5, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of their GST registration order dated 05.08.2022. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay any outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. They sought a writ of certiorari to quash the cancellation order and a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2, the Assistant Commissioner, State GST, to consider an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also sought any other appropriate relief. The State was represented by its learned counsel.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration order dated 05.08.2022 is liable to be quashed, given the petitioner's willingness to pay all dues? (Question of law/mixed fact and law) 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of GST registration cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, and whether the respondent no. 2 should be directed to consider it liberally upon payment of dues? (Question of law/mixed fact and law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022 (dated 20.06.2022). This judgment reportedly 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. The petitioner relied on this precedent to support their prayer for relief. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the learned Brief Holder for the State.