Ms Guru Ramdas Contractor vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/S Guru Ramdas Contractor, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the cancellation of their GST registration order dated January 9, 2023. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. They also sought a direction to prefer an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017, and for the respondent to consider it. The petitioner argued that their case was covered by a previous judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 102 of 2023, M/S Vijay Verma Jewellers GSTIN vs. Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun, dated January 10, 2023. The respondents, represented by the State counsel, agreed that the matter was covered by the aforementioned judgment.
Held
The Court took on record the statement made by the learned State counsel that the matter was squarely covered by the judgment dated January 10, 2023, passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 102 of 2023, M/S Vijay Verma Jewellers GSTIN vs. Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun. Consequently, the instant petition was decided in terms of that judgment and order. The specific reasoning or findings from the cited judgment were not detailed in this order, but the court's action implies adoption of its principles. The operative direction was to decide the present petition in line with the prior ruling. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration order dated January 9, 2023, is liable to be quashed, given the petitioner's willingness to clear all dues and the applicability of a prior High Court judgment? (Question of law and fact, concerning the principles of natural justice and statutory compliance). 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation of their GSTIN under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017, and whether the respondent should be directed to consider such an application? (Question of law, concerning the interpretation and application of statutory provisions). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner contended that their case was squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in M/S Vijay Verma Jewellers GSTIN vs. Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun, dated January 10, 2023. They were prepared to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. Respondents' contentions: The State counsel submitted that the matter was squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment dated January 10, 2023.
Sections Cited
Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1990 of 2023
M/S Guru Ramdas Contractor ……….....Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun and another ………..Respondents
Present:- Mr. Tarun Pande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Lakhera, Brief Holder for the respondents.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:- i) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record of the case and quash the cancellation of GSTR registration order dated 09/01/223 (Annexure No.2 to W.P.) 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 permitting the petitioner to prefer an application U/S30oftheUKGST/CGSTAct2017,for filing an
2 application for revocation of the cancellation of the GSTIN05FCIPS7989M1ZD of the Petitioner and further direct the Respondent No.2 to consider the application of the Petitioner in accordance with law. iii) Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the present case. iv) Award the cost to the petitioner throughout.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.102 of 2023, M/S Vijay Verma Jewellers GSTIN vs. Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun on 10.01.2023 (for short, “the petition”). Therefore, learned State counsel was required to get instructions.
Today, learned State counsel would submit that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment dated 10.01.2023 of this Court, passed in the petition.
3
The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned State counsel.
Instant petition is decided in terms of the judgment and order dated 10.01.2023, Writ Petition (M/S) No.102 of 2023, M/S Vijay Verma Jewellers Sanjay
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.