Anushka Infotech Through Proprietor vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State G S T Commissionerate Dehradun

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Assistant Commissioner, State GST, within 10 days, ventilating their grievances. The Assistant Commissioner is directed to consider this application and pass a speaking and reasoned order within 30 days of receiving a certified copy of the order and the brief. The Court noted the petitioner's undertaking to file the application promptly. It was also stated that if the petitioner pays the pending GST dues, their application for restoration of GST registration may be considered liberally. The Court implicitly acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the cancellation order and the procedural path forward, aligning with the principle that tax authorities should consider applications for revocation when dues are cleared and procedural rectifications are made, especially in light of the cited precedent regarding the Commissioner's role.

Facts

The petitioner, AnushkaInfotech, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court seeking to quash the cancellation of its GST registration order dated April 7, 2022. The petitioner also sought a direction to allow them to file an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, and for the respondent to consider it. The petitioner stated readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. The petitioner's counsel 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, does not lie to the Commissioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration order dated April 7, 2022, is liable to be quashed, and if so, whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which established that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, making an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, to the Commissioner invalid. They expressed willingness to pay all dues and sought a direction for their revocation application to be considered. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.