Krishan Ballab vs. The Commissioner State Tax Department Of G S T

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court dated 10.11.2021 in WPMS No.1547 of 2021. In that precedent, the Court had held that when the legislature prescribes a particular procedure for conducting business, and that procedure, as outlined in Rule 68 of the GST Rules, 2017, is violated (specifically, the absence of an electronic notice and the issuance of a registered post notice), the writ petition should be allowed. The Court in the present case found that the Brief Holder did not deny that the current issue was covered by the aforementioned judgment. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed on the same terms and conditions as the judgment dated 10.11.2021. The operative direction was to relegate the matter back to the respondents to comply with Rule 68 of the GST Rules, 2017, and then reconsider the petitioner's case in accordance with law.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of their GST registration by an order dated 11.03.2019, passed by respondent no.3. The petitioner's subsequent appeal against this order was dismissed by respondent no.2 on 10.12.2021, primarily on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash these orders and a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.3 to comply with Rule 68 of the GST Rules, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation and restoration of their registration certificate dated 17.07.2018. The petitioner contended that the cancellation order was erroneous and non-est in law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by respondent no.3, and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by respondent no.2 on grounds of limitation, are legally tenable, particularly in light of the alleged non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Rule 68 of the GST Rules, 2017? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Rule 68 of the GST Rules, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was erroneous and non-est in law. They contended that the procedure prescribed under Rule 68 of the GST Rules, 2017, was not followed, specifically the issuance of an electronic notice, and instead, a registered post notice was issued. They relied on a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the High Court dated 10.11.2021 in WPMS No.1547 of 2021, which allowed a similar writ petition and remanded the matter for compliance with Rule 68. Revenue's arguments: The Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand did not deny that the present issue was covered by the judgment of 10.11.2021.