The petitioner has filed the present petition praying that the respondent be directed to refund the amount as claimed by the petitioner in terms of the provision of Section 142 of CGST Act. The petitioner claims that the respondent had acknowledged the receipt of the said application but has not taken any steps to process the refund. The respondent shall consider the petitioner’s application and process the refund along with the applicable interest in accordance with law.

If a taxpayer has closed down its business, the respondent cannot insist that his GST registration be kept alive and he be held responsible for filing his returns thereafter. This court considers it apposite to direct that the taxpayer’s GST registration be considered as cancelled w.e.f. 31.03.2020, as was sought by him; accordingly this writ petition is disposed.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the Show Cause Notice proposing to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration as well as impugning the order whereby the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled. The said order does not contain any reasons but merely states that the order has been passed with reference to the impugned SCN. Thus, in effect, the impugned SCN does not set out the purpose of the show cause notice to enable the noticee to respond to the allegations. The impugned SCN fails to satisfy the said standards. In view of the above, the impugned SCN and the impugned order are set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner’s GST registration forthwith.

The registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria. Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer’s registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant. The registration was suspended with effect from 02.09.2021. Accordingly, the order is modified to the extent that cancellation shall take effect from 02.09.2021.

The petitioner impugns order whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. Petitioner had filed the appeal impugning order whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled retrospectively with effect from 31.03.2022. The show cause notice as well as the impugned order of cancellation, are themselves vitiated on account of lack of reason and clarity. The appeal has been dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. Since the very foundation of entire proceedings i.e. show cause notice and the order of cancellation are vitiated, this court is of the view that no purpose would be served in relegating the petitioner to the stage of an appeal. The petition is allowed. The impugned show cause notice et aside. GST registration of the petitioner is restored.

Question in this petition is with regard to interpretation of the notifications. It is the case of the petitioners that they are engaged in supply of Mango Pulp. They are 100% export oriented unit. The question arises in the petition is, insertion against Sr. No.16 by a notificatiFon dated 13.07.2022, by which, the entry for demand of tax is at the rate of 12% whereas the demand raised is 18%. RULE returnable on 01.12.2023.

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 19.03.2020 on the premise that it has been made within 2 days of issuance of Form GST DRC- 01 which is the summary of the show cause notice. This Court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the impugned order suffers from more than one infirmity. Firstly, DRC-01 is not supported by the Annexure to show cause notice and thus the petitioner was not provided with the particulars necessary to respond. Secondly, the assessment order is made on 17.03.2020. One fails to understand as to how the show cause notice as well as the assessment order has been made on the very same day. In view of the above infirmities, which this Court finds to be fatal, the impugned order is set-aside.

The petitioner’s apprehension that he would be coerced to deposit the further amount can be addressed by directing the respondents not to accept any amount of tax from the petitioner since the petitioner has unequivocally made clear that he does not wish to voluntarily deposit any tax with the concerned authority and there is no dispute that the petitioner cannot be compelled to deposit the tax without following the procedure under Section 73, 74 and 79 of the CGST Act

The present writ petition is allowed taking into consideration Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Authority to reconsider the case after the petitioner deposit 10% of the amount assessed within a period of fifteen days and appear before the Assessing Authority with all the documents and evidence in his possession, for passing fresh orders in accordance with the law.

Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the order whereby the State Tax Officer has declined the refund on the ground that the Department is in the process of filing an appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the refund application was recommended to be rejected. It is clear that the State is only dilly-delaying on the issue and merely on account of the fact that the State is in the process of filing an appeal, this court does not feel that the State is justified in divesting the petitioner of his fruits of litigation which have accrued to him. Resultantly, this court quash the said order

he petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a Show Cause Notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why its registration should not be cancelled. The impugned order does not reflect any reason for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. It merely states that the tax payer had not given any response to the impugned SCN. The SCN, as stated above, was incapable of eliciting any meaningful response. The impugned SCN and the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration are set aside. The petitioner’s GST registration shall be restored forthwith.

. Petitioner seeks quashing of show cause notice dated 02.03.2022, whereby husband of the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the GST registration of his firm be not cancelled.