Syed Sajad Hussain vs. Union Territory Of J And K Th.Commr/Secty (Finance) And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Syed Sajjad Hussain, challenged the cancellation of his GST registration. The appellate authority, vide an order dated 28.09.2024, disposed of the petitioner's statutory appeal against the cancellation order dated 30.08.2023. The appellate authority directed the petitioner to deposit a demand of Rs. 55,40,245.00, raised by respondent No. 4 under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, as a condition for the restoration of his registration. The petitioner's primary contention was that while he had no issue with the conditional restoration of registration, the computation and quantum of the demand had not been adequately dealt with by the appellate authority. The revenue, represented by the Sr. AAG, conceded that the appellate jurisdiction had not considered the quantum and computation of the demand.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority had not adequately considered the computation and quantum of the demand raised under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's limited submission that the demand's computation was prejudicial and the revenue's concession that this aspect was not examined. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by remanding the matter back to the appellate authority. The part of the order directing the restoration of the registration certificate was maintained. The appellate authority was directed to reconsider the computation and quantum of the demand after providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, strictly in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that statutory appellate authorities must address all aspects of a demand, including its computation and quantum, when adjudicating appeals, even if the primary challenge relates to the cancellation of registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority adequately adjudicated the computation and quantum of the demand raised under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, when disposing of the appeal against the cancellation of GST registration? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority's order, while conditionally restoring registration, failed to address the computation and quantum of the demand of Rs. 55,40,245.00. The petitioner sought appellate adjudication specifically on the quantum of this demand, contending that its computation was prejudicial to him. Revenue's Arguments: The Senior AAG for the revenue fairly submitted that although the order for conditional restoration of registration was within the ambit of law, the appellate jurisdiction had not considered the quantum and computation part of the demand.