Jyoti Offset Printers Champawat Gstin vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate Dehraudn

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the State Tax Officer, GST – Tanakpur, Uttarakhand, to ventilate their grievances. 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 implicitly acknowledged the petitioner's right to seek revocation by directing the concerned officer to consider their application, provided dues are cleared. The reasoning appears to be based on the principle of providing an opportunity to rectify the situation, especially when the petitioner is willing to clear outstanding liabilities and in light of the cited precedent regarding the maintainability of appeals. The Court did not explicitly decide on the validity of the cancellation order itself but focused on the procedural remedy available to the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, whose GST registration bore the GSTIN 05AQJPP6100D1Z9, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the cancellation of their GST registration order dated 21.10.2021. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. They also sought a direction to prefer an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation and for the respondent no. 2 to consider this application in accordance with law. The petitioner's counsel referred to 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 thus an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, would not lie to the Commissioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration order dated 21.10.2021 is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's willingness to pay all dues? 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation of their GST registration, and if so, whether the respondent no. 2 should be directed to consider it liberally? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which established that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and therefore, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, would not be maintainable before the Commissioner. The petitioner was ready to pay all balance tax, interest, and late fees. Revenue's contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue or State in the judgment.