Rakesh Kumar Garg vs. Assistant Commissioner GST Department Ward No 207, Delhi & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority's order dated April 5, 2021, was clear and cogent. The Appellate Authority had explicitly allowed the taxpayer's appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the Proper Officer to cancel the registration from the date of the applicant's application for cancellation, i.e., March 4, 2020. The Court found that the petitioner's registration was indeed cancelled at his request, and the Appellate Authority had categorically held that the petitioner was entitled to discontinue his business. Therefore, the Court concluded that the respondents' reliance on the order dated August 5, 2020, was misconceived. The Court directed Respondent No. 1 to comply with the order dated April 5, 2021, by allowing the petitioner to surrender his GSTIN voluntarily effective March 4, 2020.

Facts

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Garg, sought to voluntarily surrender his GSTIN due to deteriorating health. The Assistant Commissioner (Respondent No. 1) suo motu cancelled the petitioner's GSTIN from the date of registration (July 1, 2017) via an order dated September 15, 2020, instead of accepting the petitioner's request for cancellation effective March 4, 2020. The petitioner appealed this order. The Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2) by order dated April 5, 2021, set aside the cancellation order and directed Respondent No. 1 to cancel the GSTIN from March 4, 2020. However, Respondent No. 1 partially complied, cancelling the GSTIN from March 4, 2020, but not in spirit with the appellate order. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking compliance with the Appellate Authority's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Respondent No. 1 has failed to comply with the order dated 5th April, 2021 passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2) in its letter and spirit, specifically regarding the effective date of GSTIN surrender. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 1 acted arbitrarily by cancelling his GSTIN from the date of registration (July 1, 2017) instead of the requested date of surrender (March 4, 2020). He further contended that although the Appellate Authority directed cancellation from March 4, 2020, Respondent No. 1's partial compliance did not fully adhere to the appellate order's intent. The petitioner relied on the Appellate Authority's order dated April 5, 2021. Revenue's Contention: The respondents argued that the petitioner had not filed an appeal against the order dated August 5, 2020, which rejected the petitioner's application for cancellation. They relied on this order.