M/S Hasnain Ahmad Contractor A Proprietorship Firm vs. The State Of Uttarakhand

Held

The Court noted the submission of the petitioner's counsel regarding the Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022. This judgment held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and therefore, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, would 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 Assistant Commissioner, State GST, to ventilate their grievances. The Court further directed that if the petitioner pays the pending dues under the GST Act, their application for restoration of GST registration may be considered liberally.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging two orders dated 02.02.2022 and 15.03.2022 passed by the Proper Officer/Assistant Commissioner, Sector-1, SGST, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus directing the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the first appeal filed under Section 107 of the UK GST Act, 2017, on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was covered by a prior 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, would not lie to the Commissioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, lies to the Commissioner when the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority? 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. Consequently, an appeal under Section 107 of the Act should not lie to the Commissioner. The respondents' arguments are not recorded in the judgment.