The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order passed by the respondent cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration with effect from 20.03.2021. The respondent had issued the SCN proposing to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration on the ground that registration obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner’s GST registration is directed to be restored forthwith.

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the show cause notices on the ground that Section 6 of the CGST/SGST Act prohibits the Centre and the State to exercise the jurisdiction simultaneously. Notice issued to respondent.

In this Writ Petition the petitioner challenges the provisional attachment order dated 01.04.2022 and 06.04.2022 issued under Form GST DRC - 22 by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same and pass such other orders deemed fit.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the petitioner’s GST Registration be cancelled w.e.f. 30.04.2022 and not from any date prior to that. Although, the Proper Officer is empowered to cancel the GST registration with retrospective date, the said power cannot be exercised arbitrarily and without any reason for cancelling the GST registration with retrospective effect. In view of the above, this court considers it apposite to direct that the registration of the deceased tax payer be cancelled from the date of the application for cancellation of registration filed by the petitioner, i.e., from 30.04.2022, after the petitioner ensures that the provisions of the Act for a period prior to the said date are duly complied with.

Challenge has been raised to the order whereby demand has been raised against the present petitioner. Principle of natural justice would commend to this Court to bind the authorities to always ensure to provide such opportunity of hearing. It has to be ensured that such opportunity is granted in real terms. Here, the impugned order has been passed without providing opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Respondent to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner.

The challenge in this writ petition is to the demand cum show cause notice. The department was required to serve notice upon the petitioner being the legal representative of the deceased before proceeding in the matter. The impugned order nowhere records that notice issued by the department was served upon the petitioner being the legal representative of the deceased assessee. This court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner, for decision afresh after affording personnel hearing to the petitioner.

By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the cancellation of registration under CGST Act. The petitioner has contended that the show cause notice and order for cancellation of the registration do not provide for any reasons which is an incurable defect, and therefore, the same be quashed and set aside. This court is in view that insofar as the order cancelling the registration and show cause notice for such cancellation are concerned, the same is arbitrary and illegal

The challenge in this writ petition is to the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice issued by the respondent purportedly for alleged violation of the provisions of CGST Act, UPGST Act read with IGST Act further read with GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017. We are of the view that, there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Competent Authority to issue the impugned Show Cause Notice. Once allegations of infraction of law arise, the adjudication proceedings may not be interjected in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed a Show Cause Notice issued purportedly under Section 73 of the CGST Act on the ground that the noticee did not declare correct tax liability while filing the annual returns of GSTR – 09. List the case on 15.11.2023

The present Petition has been filed against the Order by which the appellate authority rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner, having observed that the Principal Supplier of the present petition had failed to upload the bills during the period under appeal, though the petitioner-appellant claimed ITC during that period which is not permissible as per the provision of the GST Act 2017. This court is of the view that rather than this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to examine this issue which involves the ascertainment of facts, it would be more appropriate to direct the appellate authority to re-examine the same for which the petitioner may file the necessary documents and explain before the appellate authority that the Principal Supplier had indeed uploaded the bills showing payment of GST so that the petitioner-appellant can claim ITC and other benefits under the law.

The challenge in this writ petition is to the show cause notice issued by the respondent for the financial year 2018-19 as also to the entire proceedings undertaken by the respondents under Section 74 of CGST Act. The challenge laid to the impugned show cause notice is on the ground that the mandatory provision of Rule 142 (1) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 have not been followed inasmuch as, the notice is not in the prescribed format FORM GST DRC-01 as provided under the aforesaid rule and also violates the requirement of issuing the summary in FORM GST DRC-02 and details of tax interest and penalty as ascertained in FORM GST DRC-01A. This court deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by requiring the petitioner to file objections to the show cause notice.

This court allows the instant petition and directs that the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate and the FIR in the present case is maintainable or not, shall be adjudicated by the Trial Court during the course of trial.