King Kong Blue Bar And Restaurant Bageshwar vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court held that the appeal filed before the Commissioner under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, was not maintainable because the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority. This finding is based on the precedent set by the Division Bench of the same Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Assistant Commissioner, State GST. The Court directed that if the petitioner clears all pending dues under the GST Act, including late fees, their application for the restoration of their GST registration should be considered liberally. The Court did not decide on the merits of the cancellation of GST registration itself, but rather on the procedural defect of the appeal.
Facts
The petitioner, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 12.09.2019, an order dated 24.09.2019 cancelling GST registration, and an order dated 25.06.2022. The petitioner sought quashing of these orders and a direction to restore their GST registration, offering to pay all expenses and late fees. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the same 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, to the Commissioner was not maintainable.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed before the Commissioner under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, was maintainable, given that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the issue was squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, dated 20.06.2022. This judgment, according to the petitioner, established that the Commissioner does not possess the status of an adjudicating authority, rendering any appeal filed before them under Section 107 of the Act invalid. Revenue's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents (revenue).
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. 2142 of 2022
Hon’ble S.K. Mishra, J.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, 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 and to quash the show cause notice dated 12.09.2019 filled as (Annexure no.-1). ii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for record and to quash the cancellation of GST Registration order dated 24.09.2019 (Annexureno.2) iii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for record and to quash the order dated 25.06.2022 (Annexure no.3) iv. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to restore the G.S.T. registration of petitioner firm and allow the petitioner to submit its G.S.T. return, the petitioner is ready to pay all t
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.