M/S Kundan Singh Prem Singh Jamnal vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State Goods And Service Tax

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Superintendent, State GST, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand. The Court directed that if the petitioner pays the pending dues under the GST Act, their application for restoration of GST registration may be considered liberally. The Court did not explicitly quash the impugned orders or directly address the petitioner's argument regarding the Commissioner not being an adjudicating authority in its final directions, but rather provided a procedural path for resolution. The Court's decision implies that the petitioner's grievances regarding registration and filing can be addressed at the Superintendent's level upon payment of dues. The issue of making changes to the GST web portal was not directly decided, but the direction to consider registration restoration implicitly addresses the petitioner's need to file returns and pay tax.

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Sagar Kothari, filed a writ petition challenging two orders: one dated 18.04.2019 passed by respondent no.2 and another dated 07.04.2022 passed by respondent no.3. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and prayed for a direction to the respondents to make necessary changes on the GST web portal to allow filing of returns and payment of tax, and to revive the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the High Court, 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 respondent State Tax Department, in its counter affidavit, indicated that it had considered revocation of cancellation of registration where the taxable entity undertook to deposit pending statutory dues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by respondent no.3 are liable to be quashed? (Question of law, turning on the powers and jurisdiction of the authorities under the GST Act). 2. Whether the respondents should be directed to make suitable changes in the GST web portal to allow the petitioner to file returns and pay tax, and to revive the petitioner's registration? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the functionality of the portal and the petitioner's eligibility for registration revival). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and therefore, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 does not lie to the Commissioner. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through their counter affidavit, stated that the State Tax Department had considered revocation of cancellation of registration, provided the taxable entity undertakes to deposit pending statutory dues under the SGST Act, 2017.