2022 (2) TMI 295 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Cancellation of registration of petitioner - no opportunity of any kind was afforded and the order of cancellation of registration was never served on petitioner - HELD THAT - The contention that impugned order was not served on the petitioner cannot be gone into in a writ petition since it involves disputed questions of fact specially in the face of unavailed remedy under Section 30 which enables a person aggrieved by an order of cancellation of registration to apply for revocation within 30 days and also confers jurisdiction on the competent authority under Section 30 to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown. It would be appropriate that the petitioner first avails the statutory remedy under Section 30 and therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition with the directions imposed - petitioner is directed to prefer an appropriate application for revocation under Section 30 (1) of the Act, 2017 within a period of 15 working days from today along with the copy of this order and also along with an application for condonation of delay showing the cause for coming late - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against an order under Section 29.
2. Order of cancellation of registration passed under Section 29 of the 2017 Act.
3. Lack of opportunity and service of cancellation order.
4. Availability of statutory remedy under Section 30 for seeking revocation of cancellation of registration.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of the appeal filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against an order under Section 29. It clarifies that such appeals are only against orders passed by adjudicating authorities, making the appeal in this case infructuous as it was not against an adjudicating authority's order.

2. The next issue pertains to the order of cancellation of registration passed under Section 29 of the 2017 Act. The petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging lack of opportunity and non-service of the cancellation order. However, the court noted that a show cause notice was issued, and the petitioner's reply was considered before the issuance of the cancellation order.

3. Regarding the lack of opportunity and service of the cancellation order, the court held that such disputed factual issues cannot be addressed in a writ petition. It emphasized the availability of the statutory remedy under Section 30, which allows a person aggrieved by a cancellation order to apply for revocation within 30 days. The court directed the petitioner to avail this remedy first.

4. Lastly, the judgment highlights the importance of following the statutory process under Section 30 for seeking revocation of the cancellation of registration. The court provided specific directions to the petitioner, including the timeline for submitting the application for revocation, the consideration of delay condonation, and the outer limit for deciding the revocation application on merits.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing the necessity for the petitioner to follow the statutory remedy under Section 30 for seeking revocation of the cancellation of registration, while also outlining the procedural steps to be taken in this regard.