Facts of the Case

The petitioner approached the High Court by filing WPMS No. 2659 of 2022, challenging proceedings relating to cancellation of its GST registration. As recorded on page 1 of the order, the petitioner sought quashing of the show cause notice dated 01.12.2021 and the GST registration cancellation order dated 18.01.2022.

The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authority to restore the GST registration of the petitioner firm and permit filing of GST returns. The petitioner specifically expressed readiness to pay the required expenses along with late fees.

An additional affidavit was also filed before the Court on the date of consideration.

The principal grievance was therefore against the cancellation of GST registration and the consequential inability of the petitioner to regularise GST compliance by filing returns and paying applicable dues and late fees.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising from the order were:

  1. Whether the show cause notice dated 01.12.2021 and the GST registration cancellation order dated 18.01.2022 were liable to be quashed.
  2. Whether the petitioner could seek restoration of the cancelled GST registration and be permitted to submit GST returns upon payment of pending dues, expenses and late fees.
  3. Whether an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 would lie before the Commissioner when the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority.
  4. Whether, in view of the earlier Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022 dated 20.06.2022, the petitioner should instead be permitted to approach the competent departmental authority for redressal of grievances and restoration of GST registration.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, represented by learned counsel Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, contended that the issue was covered by the Division Bench judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court passed in SPA No. 123 of 2022 on 20.06.2022.

The petitioner relied upon the proposition recorded in that judgment that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority and, consequently, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 would not lie to the Commissioner.

The petitioner had also expressly pleaded willingness to comply with GST obligations and sought restoration of registration so that GST returns could be submitted, with readiness to pay the applicable expenses and late fees.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Uttarakhand was represented by learned Brief Holder Mr. Mohit Maulekhi.

The short order does not record any separate or detailed substantive counter-arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, no additional respondent contention should be attributed beyond what is expressly contained in the judicial order.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Superintendent, State Tax / GST Department, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, setting out the petitioner’s grievances.

The Court further directed in substance that, if the petitioner pays the dues pending against him under the GST Act, then the petitioner’s application for restoration of GST registration may be considered liberally.

The Court did not, in the operative portion, directly restore the GST registration itself. Instead, it provided a remedial route by allowing the petitioner to approach the Superintendent of the State Tax / GST Department and linked liberal consideration of the restoration request with payment of pending GST dues.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, and the pending application also stood disposed of.

Important Clarification

A significant clarification emerging from the order is that the High Court recorded the petitioner’s reliance on the Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022 dated 20.06.2022, wherein it had been held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority and, therefore, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 shall not lie to the Commissioner.

Equally important, the present order should not be described as an unconditional judicial restoration of GST registration. The Court granted liberty to approach the Superintendent, State Tax / GST Department, Dehradun, and observed that if pending GST dues were paid, the restoration application may be considered liberally.

Thus, the order provides an important distinction between:

  • direct restoration of GST registration by the Court, which was not ordered; and
  • liberal consideration of a restoration application by the competent departmental authority upon payment of pending GST dues, which was the relief effectively facilitated by the Court.

This distinction is essential for an accurate understanding of the judgment.

Sections Involved

Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — The provision concerning appeals against decisions or orders was central to the legal submission recorded in the order. The petitioner relied upon the earlier Division Bench ruling to contend that, since the Commissioner was not an adjudicating authority, an appeal under Section 107 would not lie to the Commissioner.

GST Registration Cancellation and Restoration Framework — Although the uploaded order expressly mentions Section 107, it does not expressly identify any additional numbered statutory section governing cancellation or restoration. Therefore, no further section number is attributed to the Court beyond the text of the order.

Link to download the order -https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783415484_1360compressed.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.