ORDER

In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ or writs as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court to direct to quash the impugned order bearing No.ZA290322210147X dated 29.03.2022 passed by respondent No.1 and direct Respondent No.2 to revoke the cancellation of the GST registration of the Petitioner (Annexure-C).

(ii) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the cases in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the Memorandum of Petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 29.03.2022, respondent No.1 passed an order revoking/canceling the GST registration of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner could not prefer an appeal within the prescribed period due to bonafide reasons, sufficient cause and unavoidable circumstances. It is also submitted that the learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has paid the entire tax payable upto to the date of cancellation and for the subsequent period also and certain amount has been deposited by the petitioner before the concerned respondents. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.03.2022 passed by respondent No.1 and also seeking direction to respondent No.2 to revoke cancellation of registration of GST in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following judgments:

1. DEEPAK VASUDE ASRANI CHUGH HUF V/S JOINT COMMISSIONER OF GST APPEALS –II, BANGALORE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX RANGE AND -4, BENGALURU – 2022 (9) TMI 479;

2. AARCITY BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, M/S.NAND SPARK SHINE COMNPANY, M/S. VSL SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND ORION AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. V/S UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS-2021 (12) TMI 890;

3. UCHIT N SHETH FOR THE PETITIONER V/S MR PRIYANK LIDHA FOR THE RESPONDENT – 2022 (4) TMI 751;

4. M/S. NEO BUILT THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR V/S ETO-CUM-PROPER OFFICER AND ANOTHER -2022 (6) TMI 463;

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Perusal of the material on record and Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 will indicate that as against an order passed by respondent No.1 canceling the registration of GST, the petitioner has a remedy by way of appeal under Section 107 before the respondent No.1-Appellate Authority. In this context, it is relevant to state that merely because that the petitioner has an option of seeking revocation of the cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, it cannot be said that independent of the said remedy of seeking revocation of cancellation, an appeal would not be maintainable and as such, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 summarily dismissing the appeal on the ground that it is not maintainable in view of availability of the remedy of seeking revocation of the cancellation is clearly contrary to Section 107 and Section 30 of the CGST Act and same deserves to be set aside.

7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, having regard to the material on record and specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that it was not possible for him to seek revocation of the cancellation order on account of the Covid-19 pandemic and till disposal of the appeal by the respondent-Appellate Authority, the said explanation offered by the petitioner in not seeking revocation of the cancellation within a stipulated period of 30 days under Section 30 of the CGST Act is to be held as valid and proper and respondents are to be directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for revocation of the cancellation order in accordance with law, subject to payment of outstanding due taxes by the petitioner in accordance with law.

8. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) Petition is hereby allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 29.03.2022 at Annexure-C passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside.

iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for revocation of the cancellation of registration bearing in mind the observation made in this order and decisions referred to supra.

iv) Respondent No.2 shall reconsider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate order /take appropriate decision in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.