Gaurav Artifical Jewellery Gstin vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate Dehradun Uttarakhand
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file a manual application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation within ten days before the learned Assistant Commissioner SGST, Haldwani Sector-1. If such an application is filed, the Assistant Commissioner is directed to dispose of it with a speaking and reasoned order after providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing within 30 days. The Court did not explicitly rule on the validity of the cancellation itself but provided a procedural remedy. The reasoning implicitly acknowledges the petitioner's grievance and the potential for resolution through the revocation process, especially given the NIL tax liability mentioned.
Facts
The petitioner, who was granted GST registration, had their registration cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, SGST, Haldwani Sector-1 (respondent no. 2). The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the cancellation order dated 22.07.2021 and to permit them to file an application for revocation of the cancellation. The petitioner stated readiness to pay any outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. It was also noted that the impugned order indicated a NIL tax liability against the petitioner, suggesting no revenue demand existed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration by the Assistant Commissioner SGST, Haldwani Sector-1 is valid, considering the petitioner's willingness to pay all dues and the NIL tax liability indicated in the order? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment in "Vinod Kumar vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & others," 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. The petitioner also highlighted that the impugned order showed NIL tax liability, implying no revenue demand. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State's counsel.
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. 2675 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 22.07.2021 (Annexure No. 2 to W.P.) 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 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 05CJPG5190E1ZJ of the petitioner and further direct the respondent no. 2 to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law.
It is not disputed that petitioner was granted GST Registration, which was cance
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.