Facts of the Case

The petitioner had been granted GST registration. The said GST registration was subsequently cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Pithoragarh Sector–1, by order dated 14.06.2022.

Aggrieved by the cancellation of GST registration, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing the writ petition. The petitioner sought quashing of the GST registration cancellation order and stated readiness to pay the balance tax, interest thereon and late fee, if any.

The petitioner also sought a direction requiring the concerned respondent to decide the appeal on merits. In addition, the petitioner prayed for permission to submit an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017 for revocation of cancellation of the GST registration and for a direction to the competent authority to consider such application in accordance with law.

It was undisputed before the Court that the petitioner had been granted GST registration and that the registration was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Pithoragarh Sector–1.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising before the High Court were:

  1. Whether the petitioner could be permitted to seek revocation of cancellation of GST registration under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017.
  2. Whether, in light of the Division Bench judgment in Vinod Kumar vs Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Others, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 would lie to the Commissioner when the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority.
  3. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file a manual application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration.
  4. What procedural safeguards and timeline should govern disposal of such revocation application by the competent authority.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition was covered by the Division Bench judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in Vinod Kumar vs Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Others, Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022, decided on 20.06.2022.

The petitioner relied upon the principle stated in that judgment 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.

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

The petitioner also expressed readiness to pay the balance tax, interest thereon and late fee, if any, and sought an opportunity to apply for revocation of cancellation of GST registration under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State was represented by the learned Standing Counsel.

The order records the appearance of learned Standing Counsel for the State but does not set out any detailed independent counter-submissions or specific rebuttal advanced on behalf of the respondents.

The undisputed factual position recorded by the Court was that GST registration had been granted to the petitioner and was subsequently cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Pithoragarh Sector–1.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to make a manual application for revocation of cancellation of the GST registration.

The Court directed that:

  1. The petitioner may make the manual application for revocation within ten days.
  2. The application shall be made before the Assistant Commissioner, Pithoragarh 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 thirty days from its filing.

Thus, instead of directly restoring the GST registration, the High Court provided a procedural remedy by permitting a manual revocation application and requiring the competent authority to decide it through a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner.

Important Clarification

A significant aspect of the order is the reliance placed by the petitioner on the Division Bench ruling in Vinod Kumar vs Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Others.

In that related case, as recorded in the present order, the Court had 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.

Another important factual aspect was the petitioner’s submission that the impugned order showed NIL tax liability, indicating that no revenue demand existed against the petitioner.

The High Court nevertheless did not itself order automatic restoration of the GST registration. It granted liberty to file a manual revocation application and required the competent authority to decide it by a speaking and reasoned order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Sections Involved

Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017
This provision concerns revocation of cancellation of registration. The petitioner specifically sought permission to submit an application under this provision for revocation of cancellation of GST registration.

Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017
This provision arose in the context of the related Division Bench judgment in Vinod Kumar vs Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Others. As recorded in the present order, the Division Bench had held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority and, therefore, an appeal under Section 107 shall not lie to the Commissioner.

Key Takeaway

Where GST registration has been cancelled and the statutory appellate route raises a jurisdictional issue in light of the ruling in Vinod Kumar vs Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Others, the High Court may permit the taxpayer to submit a manual application for revocation of cancellation. In the present case, the Uttarakhand High Court allowed such an application to be filed within ten days and directed the competent Assistant Commissioner to decide it within thirty days through a speaking and reasoned order after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783333614_1241compressed.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.