M/S Sai Carriers ,Lko. Thru. Proprietor Anuj Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Deptt. Of State Tax)Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sai Carriers, had its GST Licence cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Lucknow on August 26, 2023, for non-payment of tax due. The petitioner appealed this order. The appellate authority, the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), State Tax, Lucknow, rejected the appeal on July 20, 2024. The appellate authority's reasoning was that while the petitioner had submitted returns and paid the tax due, they had only paid the interest, implying the tax itself was not fully paid or was paid late. The petitioner subsequently paid both the tax amount and the interest after the appellate order.

Held

The Court considered the petitioner's submission that they had filed returns and paid the tax as well as the interest. Based on these submissions, the Court directed the respondent no. 3 (likely the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax) to take steps for renewing the petitioner's GST Licence within ten days of the order's communication. The Court further stipulated that if any other amount was due, the petitioner should be communicated this amount, which the petitioner is obligated to pay within seven days of such communication. The Court did not explicitly address the legality of the initial cancellation or the appellate order's reasoning, focusing instead on the subsequent compliance by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the GST Licence was justified based on the petitioner's tax payment status, considering the subsequent payment of tax and interest? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the conditions for licence cancellation and renewal under GST law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that after the appellate order, they have paid the tax amount and the interest. They are ready to pay any other communicated amount within seven days. Therefore, their GST Licence should be renewed. Respondent's contention: The respondent-State Authorities, through the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's submissions in the provided text. However, their initial action of cancelling the licence and the appellate authority's rejection of the appeal indicate a stance that the petitioner was in default of tax payment obligations.