Satish Gupta vs. Commisisoner State Goods And Service Tax
Held
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the High Court. This judgment 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. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an application before the Superintendent, State GST, Haldwani, Uttarakhand, to ventilate their grievances. The Court also directed that if the petitioner pays all pending dues under the GST Act, their application for restoration of GST registration should be considered liberally. The pending application was also disposed of.
Facts
The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation of their GST registration, which occurred on October 16, 2020. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay any outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. They also prayed for a direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide their appeal on merits and to permit them to file an application for revocation of the cancellation of their GSTIN. The petitioner argued that the appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, was not maintainable before the Commissioner as the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority. This contention was based on a previous Division Bench judgment of the High Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, lies to the Commissioner when the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have their GST registration restored upon payment of dues? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, was not maintainable before the Commissioner because the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority. They relied on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, passed on June 20, 2022, which supported this position. Revenue's arguments: 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. 2324 of 2022
Hon’ble S.K. Mishra, J.
Mr. Tarun Pande and Mr. Ashish Agarwal, 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 suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record of the case and quash the cancellation of GST Registration order dated 16.10.2020 (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition) as petitioner is ready to pay all the balance tax, interest on it and late fee if any.
ii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the appeal on merits.
iii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus permitting the petition to prefer an application U/S 30 of the CGST Act 2017, for filing an application for revocation of the cancellation of the GSTIN05AIWPG5288J3ZJ of the petitioner and further direct the respondent
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.