Hoshiyar Singh Bungla vs. Assistant Commissioner Pithoragarh

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that the issue was covered by the Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority. Consequently, the Court found merit in the petitioner's challenge to the procedural propriety of the actions taken. Instead of directly quashing the impugned notices and order, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Pithoragarh. 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. The Assistant Commissioner is mandated to dispose of such an application with a speaking and reasoned order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within 30 days of its filing. The ratio decidendi is that procedural remedies should be exhausted, and authorities should act in accordance with established judicial pronouncements, especially when a higher court has already ruled on a similar point of law.

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Rohit Arora, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice for cancellation of GST registration dated 24.03.2022 and the subsequent order for cancellation of registration dated 02.04.2022, both issued by the respondent authority. The petitioner sought quashing of these notices and orders, and a direction to revive their GST registration. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, 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 Court considered this submission.

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. This issue turns on the interpretation of the powers and functions of the Commissioner as defined in the Act. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the issue was squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which had ruled that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority. Therefore, the appeal mechanism under Section 107, which presumably lies to the Commissioner, would not be applicable or appropriate in this context. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents regarding this issue.