M/S Naini Valley Constructions Bhatroj Kahn Almora vs. Assistant Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file a manual application for revocation of the cancellation of their GST registration within ten days before the learned Assistant Commissioner, Almora Sector-I. If such an application is filed, it must be disposed of by a speaking and reasoned order after providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing within 30 days. The Court's decision implicitly acknowledges the petitioner's contention regarding the procedural impropriety of the cancellation process, aligning with the principle established in the Vinod Kumar case, without explicitly ruling on the Section 107 appeal issue. The NIL tax liability was a significant factor in directing the revocation process.
Facts
The petitioner, who was granted GST registration, challenged a show cause notice dated 16.11.2021 and an order dated 30.12.2021, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner (respondent no. 1), for cancellation of their registration. The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Vinod Kumar vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & others, 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 petitioner also pointed out that the impugned order showed a NIL tax liability, indicating no revenue demand existed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner, by issuing the show cause notice and order for cancellation of GST registration, acted as an adjudicating authority, and if so, whether an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 would lie to the Commissioner. Petitioner's arguments: - The issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment in Vinod Kumar vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & others, which held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, rendering an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 to the Commissioner invalid. - The impugned order indicated a NIL tax liability, suggesting no revenue demand against the petitioner. Revenue's arguments: - The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue or State.
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. 2201 of 2022
Hon’ble S.K. Mishra, J.
Mr. Rohist Arora, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Lakhera, the learned Brief Holder for the State.
Heard.
By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed as follows:-
a. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned show cause notice for cancellation of registration bearing Reference No. ZA051121008736Z and dated 16.11.2021 issued by respondent no. 1. b. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order for cancellation of registration bearing Reference No. ZA051221037992Q and dated 30.12.2021 issued by respondent no.
It is not disputed that petitioner was granted GST registration which was cancelled by the learned Assistant Commissioner/respondent no.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the present case is covered by the Division bench judgment of this Court in the case
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.