The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the denial of refund of its unutilized Input Tax Credit in respect of zero- rated supplies. According to the concerned authorities, the petitioner’s application was not filed within the stipulated period of two years from the relevant date as required under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act. Notification no. 13/2022-Central Tax expressly provides that the period commencing from the 1st day of March 2020 to 28th February, 2022, would be excluded, inter alia, for the purposes of filing the refund application. The respondents are directed to process the petitioner’s refund application along with the applicable interest within a period of two weeks from today.

By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent by which, an application filed by the petitioner to refund the amount paid towards the GST came to be rejected mainly on the ground that order has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice and being a non-speaking and cryptic order. The respondent authority is directed to decide the case afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in accordance with the law.

The Respondents cannot contend that an unadjusted TDS amount cannot be allowed to be migrated in terms of Section 140(1) of the JGST Act.

A present petition has been filed challenging the order whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been canceled. The Court has held that the impugned order does not assign any reason whatsoever for canceling the registration of the petitioner and is passed only on the ground that a reply to the show cause notice is not given. The non-submission of a reply to the show cause cannot be a ground for cancellation of the registration.

Accused/applicants have been in judicial custody since 04.02.2023, they are ordered to be admitted to bail upon the furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the equal amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Petitioner is before this Court seeking to challenge the action of the respondent – Authority of cancelling the registration and also of rejecting of application for revocation of cancellation under the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The show cause notice, which has been issued, is quite cryptic.

The impugned order largely proceeds on the basis that the supply of services was admitted and the refund of GST was sought on account of non-recovery of the lease rentals. This court it apposite to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Appellate Authority to consider the aforesaid contention and pass a speaking order after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order whereby the petitioner’s GSTIN was canceled. Apart from the other grounds, the petitioner also assails the said order on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to consider afresh.

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the respondent canceling the GST registration of the petitioner. It would be just and proper if the entire matter is remanded back to respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner and thereafter to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

The issue pertains to cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper if the entire matter is remanded back to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

For balancing the equities, therefore, the Court is of the opinion that since order is being passed due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondent-Authorities, the petitioner would be required to present/file his appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional and the President or the State President may enter office.

The petitioner’s refund application was, essentially, rejected not on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to any refund, but on the ground that the periods for which the refund was claimed did not correspond to the periods for which the returns were filed. This court considers it apposite to allow the present petition and direct the respondents to forthwith process the petitioner’s claim for refund.