Dhananjay Giri vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioner, Dhananjay Giri, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Haldwani Sector-I, which cancelled his GST registration (No. 05ALTTG7344PIZD). The petitioner argued that the Assistant Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority and therefore, no appeal lies under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, leaving him without a remedy. The State, through the learned Brief Holder, acknowledged a Division Bench judgment in Vinod Kumar vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & others, which held that the Commissioner would not entertain appeals under Section 107 in such cases. The State submitted that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the petitioner's alternative prayer.

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance that the order cancelling his GST registration was passed by an authority who, according to a Division Bench judgment, is not an adjudicating authority, thus rendering the appeal remedy under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, unavailable. The Court also noted the State's submission that they would not entertain appeals under Section 107 in such cases, as per the aforementioned Division Bench ruling. Given this procedural deadlock, the Court directed that the petitioner be permitted to file an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation of his GST registration. The Assistant Commissioner, Haldwani Sector-I, was directed to consider this application on its merits, if filed within 15 days, without insisting on the petitioner satisfying the question of limitation. The application is to be disposed of with a speaking and reasoned order within 30 days of filing, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner is an adjudicating authority under the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the purpose of issuing an order cancelling GST registration, and consequently, whether an appeal under Section 107 of the Act is maintainable against such an order? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued, relying on the Division Bench judgment in Vinod Kumar vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & others, that the Assistant Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority and therefore, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Act is not maintainable against the order passed by him. This leaves the petitioner without a remedy. Revenue's contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State acknowledged the Division Bench judgment and submitted that the Commissioner has not entertained appeals under Section 107 in similar circumstances. The State agreed that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the petitioner's alternative prayer.