Sameer Ahamad vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate Dehradun
Held
The Court held that the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment in "Vinod Kumar vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & others", which established 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 also noted the petitioner's submission that the tax liability was NIL. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to file a manual application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation within ten days before the Assistant Commissioner, Haldwani Sector - 1. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to decide this application by a speaking and reasoned order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within 30 days.
Facts
The petitioner, who was granted GST registration, had their registration cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Haldwani Sector – 1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the cancellation order, direct the respondent no. 3 to decide their appeal on merits, and permit them to prefer an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner stated they were ready to pay any outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. It was also noted that the impugned order showed a NIL tax liability against the petitioner.
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 arguments: The petitioner contended that the issue is covered by a Division Bench judgment of the Court in "Vinod Kumar vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & others", which held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and therefore, an appeal under Section 107 would not lie to the Commissioner. They also argued that the tax liability shown in the impugned order was NIL, indicating no revenue demand existed. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue or State.
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. 2567 of 2022
Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Mr. Ashish Agarwal and Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State. By filing this writ 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 16.06.2022 (Annexure No. 2 to W.P.) as petitioner is ready to pay all the balance tax, interest on it and lat 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 in 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 05BUHPA3377C1Z2 of the petitioner and further direct the respondent no. 2 to consider the ap
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.