Anuj Kumar Verma vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Anuj Kumar Verma, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an Order for Cancellation of Registration bearing Reference No. ZA050223045769G dated 28.02.2023, issued by the Superintendent, Central Goods and Services Tax, Sector-1, Haldwani. The petitioner also sought to quash the Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of Registration bearing Reference No. ZA050123014807X dated 14/01/2023, issued by the same authority. The primary prayer was for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to revive the petitioner's GST registration. The case was heard by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Alok Kumar Verma.

Held

The Court, with the consent of both parties, disposed of the writ petition. It directed that if the petitioner deposits all outstanding dues of tax, including any interest and penalty, and submits an application for the reversal of the cancellation of their GST registration within one week from the date of the order, the Competent Authority shall consider the application. The Competent Authority is then directed to pass an appropriate order as per law within two weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the High Court's order along with the petitioner's application. The Court did not explicitly rule on the validity of the cancellation order or the show cause notice themselves, opting for a conditional revival.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order for cancellation of GST registration and the preceding show cause notice issued by the respondent are liable to be quashed. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the rules framed thereunder, concerning the grounds for cancellation and the procedure to be followed. The petitioner argued for the quashing of the impugned order and notice, seeking revival of their GST registration. The respondent's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment, but their role as the issuing authority of the contested notices implies a defense of their actions. The court did not explicitly frame the arguments of each side in detail, focusing instead on a procedural resolution.