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

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/direction quashing the Order-in-Appeal No.: MYS-SPP-ADC/Jc(A)-001 to 010-2022-23 GST dated 22.04.2022 passed by Respondent No.1. vide Annexure-F.

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to Respondent No.2 and / or Respondent No.3 to restore the GST Registration of the Petitioner;

(iii) Grant ad-interim relief as prayed for herein below;

(iv) 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 counsel for 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 13.04.2020 when there was a lockdown on account of covid 19 pandemic, the respondents passed an order revoking/cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner. Subsequently due to the covid 19 pandemic, the petitioner could not prefer an appeal within the prescribed period and on account of extension of time granted due to the covid 19 pandemic, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1-Appellate Authority on 30.03.2022. On 22.04.2022, respondent No.1-Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable since the only option available to the petitioner was to approach the respondent No.2 for revocation of the cancellation and restoration of the registration.

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 certain amount has been deposited by the petitioner before the respondent No.1-Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.04.2022 passed by respondent No.1-Appellate Authority and refusal on the part of 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 REPORTED IN 2022 (9) TMI 479 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

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 REPORTED IN 2021 (12) TMI 890 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

3. UCHIT N SHETH FOR THE PETITIONER V/S MR PRIYANK LIDHA FOR THE RESPONDENT REPORTED IN 2022 (4) TMI 751 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT

4. M/S. NEO BUILT THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR V/S ETOCUM-PROPER OFFICER AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 2022 (6) TMI 463 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and same is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted that after the present petition was preferred on 02.09.2022 the respondent No.3 has issued communication letter dated 06.09.2022 informing the petitioner that application for revocation of the cancellation of registration cannot be considered.

6. Perusal of the material on record and Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 will indicate that as against an order passed by the respondent No.3 canceling the registration of GST, the petitioner has an 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 the respondent No.1-Appellate Authority 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 respondent No.1-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 respondent No.2 is 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 22.04.2022 at Annexure – F is hereby set aside.

iii) Respondent No.3 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 and without reference to the communication dated 06.09.2022 issued by respondent No.3 to the petitioner since the same has come into existence during the pendency of the petition when the matter was before this Court.

iv) The respondent No.3 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.