Jeewan Chandra Pant vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate Dehradun

Facts

The petitioner, Jeevan Chandra Pant, a proprietor firm registered under the Uttarakhand Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017, challenged an order dated 01.01.2024 cancelling its GST registration. The cancellation was due to the petitioner's failure to update bank account details on the GST portal. The petitioner had filed an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the UKGST Act, and during its pendency, updated the bank details. However, this application was rejected by respondent no.2 via an order dated 21.09.2024. The petitioner did not challenge this rejection order directly, nor did they avail the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the UKGST Act. Instead, the petitioner sought liberty to move a representation to the respondents, given that the bank details had been updated.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had not challenged the order dated 21.09.2024, which rejected the revocation application, nor had they availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the UKGST Act. However, the petitioner limited their argument to seeking liberty to move a representation to the respondents, given that the bank details had been updated. The learned State Counsel had no serious objection to this proposal. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall move a representation to respondent no.2 within fifteen days from the date of the order. Respondent no.2 was directed to decide the said representation strictly in accordance with law. The Court did not decide on the merits of the cancellation or the rejection of the revocation application but provided a procedural path forward.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the order of cancellation of GST registration dated 01.01.2024 and the subsequent rejection order dated 21.09.2024 through a writ petition, despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the UKGST Act? 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file a representation to the respondents, and if so, whether a direction should be issued for its expeditious disposal, considering the bank details have been updated. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that since the bank details have been updated, they should be allowed to move a representation to the respondents and a direction should be issued for its decision within a stipulated time. They did not press for a challenge to the earlier orders but sought a procedural concession. Revenue's arguments: The learned State Counsel had no serious objection to the proposal submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.