2020 (7) TMI 178 - HC - GST

Revocation of cancellation of Registration - section 30 of CGST Act - HELD THAT - This petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file necessary applications seeking revocation of cancellation of registration. If such application is submitted, respondent No.3 - the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru, shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible and in any event, in an outer limit of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition to quash the order of cancellation of registration dated 06.06.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru.
2. Interpretation of Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 regarding revocation of cancellation of registration.
3. Granting liberty to the petitioner to file necessary applications seeking revocation of cancellation of registration.
4. Timely consideration of the application for revocation by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru.

The judgment pertains to a writ petition seeking to quash the order of cancellation of registration dated 06.06.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru. The petitioner's advocate argued for the filing of an application under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 for revocation of the cancellation. The learned AGA highlighted that the petitioner can approach the appropriate authority for revocation as per Section 30 of the CGST Act by submitting a prescribed format application for consideration. The court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to file necessary applications seeking revocation of the cancellation of registration. It directed the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru to consider the application expeditiously, within an outer limit of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, keeping all contentions of the parties open. The judgment also clarified that all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of, and no costs were awarded in the case.

In conclusion, the judgment primarily focused on the interpretation of Section 30 of the CGST Act regarding the revocation of cancellation of registration. It emphasized the procedural aspect of filing necessary applications by the petitioner and the obligation of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru to consider such applications promptly. The court's decision aimed to ensure a timely and fair process for the petitioner while maintaining procedural fairness and upholding the relevant provisions of the CGST Act.