Pratap Singh Contractor Gstin vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the State Tax Officer, GST – Bageshwar, Uttarakhand. The Court directed that if the petitioner clears any pending dues under the GST Act, their application for the restoration of GST registration should be considered liberally. The Court's reasoning implicitly acknowledged the petitioner's argument regarding the appealability to the Commissioner, as it provided an alternative route for grievance redressal. The operative direction is to consider the petitioner's application for restoration of GST registration liberally upon payment of dues, and to file an application before the State Tax Officer. The issue of whether the Commissioner is an adjudicating authority for the purpose of Section 107 was not directly decided but was circumvented by the Court's direction.
Facts
The petitioner, whose GST registration bore the number 05AJYPK6816H1ZQ, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the cancellation of their GST registration order dated 26.02.2022. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay any outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. Additionally, the petitioner sought a direction for the respondent no. 3 to decide their appeal on merits and for respondent no. 2 to consider an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the High Court concerning appeals to the Commissioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, lies to the Commissioner, given that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority? (Question of law, turning on Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by 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 therefore, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, would not lie to the Commissioner. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the State of Uttarakhand.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 30
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. 2717 of 2022
Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Mr. Ashish Agarwal and Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed as follows:- i. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record of the case and quash the cancellation of GST Registration order dated 26.02.2022 (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition) as petitioner is ready to pay all the balance tax, interest on it and late fee if any.
ii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to decide the appeal on its merits.
iii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus permitting the petitioner to prefer an application U/S 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, for filing an application for revocation of the cancellation of the GSTIN 05AJYPK6816H1ZQ of the petitioner and further direct the respondent no.
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.