Munna Giri vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioner, Munna Giri, sought to quash an order dated 13.07.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Haldwani Sector-I, which cancelled the petitioner's GST registration (No. 05BKLPG7746R1ZC). Alternatively, the petitioner prayed for a direction to allow them to file an application for revocation of the cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, and for the Assistant Commissioner to consider it on merits. The petitioner argued that the Assistant Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority and no appeal lies against their order under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, leaving them without a remedy. The State acknowledged the Division Bench's judgment in Vinod Kumar vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & others, which held that the Commissioner would not entertain appeals under Section 107 against such orders.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be permitted to prefer an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation of their GST registration. The Assistant Commissioner, Haldwani Sector-I, was directed to consider the application, if filed within 15 days, on its merits without insisting on the petitioner satisfying the condition of limitation. The Court further directed that the application, once filed, shall be disposed of by a speaking and reasoned order after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing within 30 days of its filing. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the primary focus was on providing a procedural remedy given the lack of an appellate forum.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner is an adjudicating authority against whose order an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, would lie? The petitioner contended that, relying on the High Court's decision in Vinod Kumar vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & others, the Assistant Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and therefore, no appeal lies under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Act. This position, the petitioner argued, leaves them without a remedy against the order cancelling their GST registration. The respondents (State of Uttarakhand & Ors.) acknowledged the correctness of the Division Bench's judgment in Vinod Kumar, which stated that the Commissioner would not entertain appeals under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Act against orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Consequently, the respondents submitted that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the alternative prayer.