M/S Murli Wala Agro Products Kanjabagh Road Khatima vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court held that the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022. This judgment established 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. Based on this precedent, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an application before the State Tax Officer, Khatima-Sector I, Khatima, Uttarakhand, within ten days. If the petitioner pays any outstanding dues under the GST Act, their application for the restoration of GST registration is to be considered liberally. The State Tax Officer is directed to dispose of any such application by a speaking and reasoned order after providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity of hearing, within 30 days of its filing.
Facts
The petitioner, a firm, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 10.03.2022 and to direct the respondents to restore its 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 therefore an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, does not lie to the Commissioner. The respondents were represented by a Brief Holder. The specific tax period and the authority that passed the impugned order were not explicitly detailed in the provided text, nor was the amount in dispute.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, lies to the Commissioner when the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority? The petitioner contended that the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which established that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and consequently, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, is not maintainable before the Commissioner. The respondents' counsel did not present any arguments in this regard.
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. 2372 of 2022
Hon’ble S.K. Mishra, J.
Mr. Rahul Consul, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Lakhera the learned Brief Holder for the respondents.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed as follows:-
“i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for records and quashing the impugned order dated
2022 (annexed as annexure no. 3 to the writ petition).
ii. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately restore the GST
registration of the petitioner firm.”
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in SPA No. 123 of 2022 on 20.06.2022 wherein this Court has held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and, therefore, appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 shall not lie to the Commissioner.
In that view of the ma
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.