Facts of the Case

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking appropriate relief against the cancellation of GST registration.

The petitioner specifically prayed for issuance of a suitable writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record of the case and quash the GST registration cancellation order dated 22 July 2021. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay the balance tax, interest thereon, and late fee, if any.

The petitioner further sought a suitable writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus permitting the filing of an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017 for revocation of cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration and directing respondent no. 2 to consider such application in accordance with law.

It was undisputed that the petitioner had been granted GST registration and that the registration was subsequently cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, SGST, Haldwani Sector–1, respondent no. 2.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising from the proceedings were:

  1. Whether the petitioner could be permitted to seek revocation of cancellation of GST registration through an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017.
  2. Whether the matter was covered by the Division Bench judgment in Vinod Kumar vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Others, Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022, decided on 20 June 2022.
  3. Whether an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 would lie to the Commissioner when, according to the relied-upon Division Bench judgment, the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority.
  4. What relief should be granted where the impugned order reflected NIL tax liability and, according to the petitioner, no revenue demand existed.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition was covered by the Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Vinod Kumar vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Others, Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022, dated 20 June 2022.

Reliance was placed on the said judgment for the proposition that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority and, therefore, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 would not lie to the Commissioner.

The petitioner further submitted that the tax liability reflected in the impugned order was NIL. According to the petitioner, this demonstrated that no revenue demand existed against the petitioner.

The petitioner also expressed readiness to pay all balance tax, interest thereon, and late fee, if any.

Respondent’s Arguments

The order records the appearance of the learned Standing Counsel for the State. However, the text of the order does not set out any separate or detailed substantive arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents.

Accordingly, no additional respondent submissions should be attributed beyond what is expressly recorded in the judicial order.

Court Order / Findings

Considering the matter, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a manual application for revocation of cancellation of the GST number.

The Court directed that:

  1. The petitioner may make the manual application for revocation of cancellation of the GST registration within ten days.
  2. The application shall be submitted before the Assistant Commissioner, SGST, Haldwani Sector–1.
  3. If such an application is filed, it shall be disposed of by a speaking and reasoned order.
  4. The petitioner shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
  5. The application shall be decided within a period of 30 days from its filing.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Important Clarification

The Court did not, in the operative portion of the order, itself restore or revive the petitioner’s GST registration.

The relief granted was specifically in the nature of liberty to file a manual application for revocation of cancellation within ten days before the competent Assistant Commissioner, SGST, Haldwani Sector–1.

The competent authority was required to decide such application through a speaking and reasoned order, after granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, within 30 days of filing.

It is also important that the petitioner relied upon Vinod Kumar vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Others for the proposition that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority and, therefore, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 would not lie to the Commissioner.

Further, the petitioner specifically submitted that the impugned order reflected NIL tax liability, indicating, according to the petitioner, that no revenue demand existed. This aspect was part of the submissions recorded by the Court and should not be overstated as a separate general legal principle beyond the terms of the order.

Sections Involved

Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Revocation of cancellation of registration.

Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 — Provision concerning appeals against decisions or orders, discussed in the context of the precedent relied upon by the petitioner.

Link to Download the Order – https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783401963_1247compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.