https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760697 The HC allowed a review application in part regarding GST registration cancellation. The court held that the Assistant Commissioner, having been assigned functions under the Uttarakhand GST Act 2017, constitutes both a proper officer under Section 2(91) and an adjudicating authority under Section 2(4) of the Act. Consequently, appeals against Assistant Commissioner orders lie before the Commissioner. The court modified its earlier judgment dated 20.06.2022, clarifying the appellate jurisdiction and confirming the Assistant Commissioner's authority to cancel GST registration, with proper appellate remedy available to the Commissioner. en-us Mon, 24 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 May 2025 13:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760697 The HC allowed a review application in part regarding GST registration cancellation. The court held that the Assistant Commissioner, having been assigned functions under the Uttarakhand GST Act 2017, constitutes both a proper officer under Section 2(91) and an adjudicating authority under Section 2(4) of the Act. Consequently, appeals against Assistant Commissioner orders lie before the Commissioner. The court modified its earlier judgment dated 20.06.2022, clarifying the appellate jurisdiction and confirming the Assistant Commissioner's authority to cancel GST registration, with proper appellate remedy available to the Commissioner. Case-Laws GST Mon, 24 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760697