It is crystal clear that reasonable opportunity ought to be given to a person to show cause and depending upon the facts of each case, even further extension of time can be granted by the Assessing / Adjudicating Officer. In any event, the decision to refuse or extend time ought to be exercised with sound reasons and not in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The circular dated 26.09.2022 of the respondent also clearly stipulates that the communication granting time or refusal to grant time shall also be sent to the assessee.

Since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching the 2nd appellate tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, as an interim measure subject to the Petitioner depositing the entire tax demand within a period of fifteen days from the today, the rest of the demand shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition

It is apparent from the record that the petitioner made payment in the wrong head and there is no dispute regarding the same. However, his claim for refund has been rejected by the authority on the ground of limitation vide order dated 23.4.2020

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order by which assessment under Section 63 of the OGST Act has been made against the petitioner. The assessment order is set aside and the Petitioner may appear before the Assessing Officer and furnish objection, if any

This Court has no manner of doubt that the very initiation of the proceedings by way of show cause notice (Annexure P-1) is vitiated for the same being vague.

The court observed that mandatory provisions of Section 74 make it incumbent upon the Revenue to ensure the SCN to be speaking enough to enable the assessee to respond to the same. It neither contained the material and information nor the statement containing details of ITC transaction under question

The impugned order may be set aside and the matter be remanded to the concerned authority to pass an order afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

There is no reason why the writ petition should be entertained specifically when the rectification application, on which basis the proceedings under section 73 is sought to be kept in abeyance, cannot be invoked fruitfully by the petitioner.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a Show Cause Notice and the proceedings pursuant thereto. Considering the circumstances, this court is of the view that it would be apposite to restore the petitioner’s application for revocation of cancellation of its GST registration before the concerned officer for deciding afresh

The main contention of the petitioner was that the bifurcation of AC and NON-AC tickets was not taken into account. However, assessment was done on both AC and NON-AC buses and also data was received for revenue from third parties.

The court did not appreciate the insistence on the part of the Revenue for the appellant to file fresh applications for the refund. The respondent counsel stated that fresh applications for refund or Show Cause Notices would not be necessary.

The instant application for bail is allowed.