Radhey Shyam Yadav vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition, noting that the issue was covered by a Division Bench judgment. The Court held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and consequently, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, would not lie to the Commissioner. Based on this, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Pithoragarh, Sector-1 (Respondent No. 1) within ten days. The Court directed that if the petitioner pays any outstanding dues under the GST Act, their application for restoration of GST registration should be considered liberally. Any such application, if filed, must be disposed of by a speaking and reasoned order after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing within 30 days.
Facts
The petitioner, a GST-registered entity, challenged a show cause notice for cancellation of registration dated January 22, 2022, an order for cancellation of registration dated February 28, 2022, an order for rejection of revocation of cancellation dated June 10, 2022, and a show cause notice for rejection of revocation of cancellation dated April 28, 2022, all issued by Respondent No. 1, the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash these notices and orders, and a writ of mandamus to revive their GST registration. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by a Division Bench judgment of the same High Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Commissioner is an adjudicating authority for the purpose of appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017? (Question of law) 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, dated June 20, 2022. This judgment purportedly 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's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.
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 JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS No. 2593 of 2022
Hon’ble S.K. Mishra, J.
Mr. Rohit Arora, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed as follows:-
“a. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned show cause notice for cancellation of registration bearing reference no. ZA050122017786S and dated 22.01.2022 issued by the respondent no. 1;
b. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order for cancellation of registration bearing reference no. ZA050222035574X and dated 28.02.2022 issued by the respondent no. 1
c. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order for rejection of application for revocation of cancellation bearing reference no. ZA050622006783R and dated 10.06.2022 issued by respondent no. 1;
d. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugne
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.