Gujarat Automation vs. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Gujarat Automation, a partnership firm, filed a writ application seeking activation of its GSTIN (24AAJFG5199D1ZB). The petitioner was initially issued a GSTIN based on its registration under the Value Added Tax (VAT) Act. However, its VAT registration was cancelled effective June 30, 2016. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal against the VAT registration cancellation, which was allowed on July 4, 2018, reviving its VAT registration from June 30, 2016. Despite this revival, the petitioner's GSTIN remained inactive, preventing them from commencing business. The petitioner had made multiple representations to the authorities without success.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to have its GSTIN activated and made operational. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner's appeal against the cancellation of its VAT registration was allowed, and the registration was revived retrospectively. The Court noted that the petitioner had made several representations to the authorities without success. The Court directed the respondent no. 2, the Goods & Services Tax Council, to take up the matter at the earliest and ensure that the GSTIN is activated and made operational within a period of one week from the date of the order. The Court emphasized that this direction was particularly given considering the allowance of the petitioner's appeal. The inability of the petitioner to commence business due to the inactive GSTIN was also a significant factor.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GSTIN of the petitioner should be activated and made operational, considering that its underlying VAT registration was revived by an appellate order dated July 4, 2018. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of Section 139 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the migration of existing taxpayers. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since its VAT registration was revived by the appellate authority, its GSTIN should automatically be made active and operational. They contended that the continued inactivity of the GSTIN, despite the successful appeal, was causing them significant hardship, preventing them from commencing business. Revenue/State's contention: The learned AGP for the State respondent submitted that the case of the writ-applicant had been positively recommended for the activation of the GSTIN. He acknowledged that as the appeal was allowed, the petitioner is entitled to have the GSTIN activated and operational, and provided documents indicating a positive recommendation from the State's end.