Parmar Testing Lab And Research Centre Through Its Partner vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was covered by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022. This judgment 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. Based on this submission, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Superintendent, State Tax / GST Department, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, to ventilate its grievances. The Court further directed that if the petitioner pays all pending dues under the GST Act, their application for restoration of GST registration may be considered liberally.
Facts
The petitioner, a firm, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 01.12.2021 and an order dated 18.01.2022 cancelling its GST registration. The petitioner sought quashing of these orders and a direction for the restoration of its GST registration, offering to pay all expenses and late fees. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the High Court. The respondent was the State of Uttarakhand.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Commissioner is an adjudicating authority under the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, and consequently, whether an appeal under Section 107 of the Act lies to the Commissioner? The petitioner contended that the issue is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and therefore, an appeal under Section 107 would not lie to the Commissioner. The State's arguments were not recorded in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 107
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. 2659 of 2022
Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. An additional affidavit has been filed today in the Court. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- i. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record and to quash the show cause notice dated 01.12.2021 filed as (Annexure No. 1).
ii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for record and to quash the cancellation of GST Registration order dated 18.01.2022 (Annexure No. 2).
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to restore the GST Registration of petitioner firm and allow the petitioner to submit its G.S.T. return, the petitioner is ready to pay all the expenses along with late fees.
iv. Issue any other writ order or direction, which
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.