1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following reliefs:

Since reply to the SCN is not in commensurate with reasons mentioned for the cancellation, an opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner to file a detailed response and thereafter the authorities to re-adjudicate the SCN. Henceforth, the cancellation order is set aside and petitioner is granted one week’s time to file a detailed response. Thereafter, the authority shall dispose of the show cause notice within a period of 30 days after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. It would be open to the competent authority to have a fresh inspection carried out, if so required. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dispose

Refers to pendency of CWP-13194-2023 titled Charisma Goldwheels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab

2. The petitioner asserts that it is a public limited company engaged in the business of supply of light vehicles and parts thereof as also the servicing of such vehicles. The petitioner further asserts that it is a registered person under GST laws in respect of multiple places of business. The books of account of the petitioner for the financial years 2017-2018 to 2020-2021 were audited by an audit group by issuing notice in Form GST ADT-01. Pursuant to such audit, a draft audit report containing audit observations was issued. This was followed by a revised draft audit report and eventually the issuance of an audit report in Form GST ADT-02 on 07.09.2023. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 13.09.2023 was issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the CGST Act) in respect of about 11 audit observations and a separate show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act on 14.12.2023 in respect of about 5 audit observations. The later show cause notice is the subject of challenge herein.

1. The petitioner made zero rated supply of goods and seeks refund of the unutilized accumulated Input Tax Credit. He filed Form GST RFD-01 but his prayer stood rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to upload the shipping details. The appeal preferred before the Additional Commissioner of CGST & CX, Siliguri Appeal Commissionerate also stood rejected vide order dated March 23, 2023.

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

1. Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, holding brief of learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the Union of India and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the Revenue.

The petitioner assails the assessment order as it pertains to the tax demand arising out of discrepancies between Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-2A. As there was no personal hearing was provided, therefore, the impugned order is quashed. As a corollary, the matter is remanded for re-consideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, the respondent is directed to issue a fresh assessment order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Petitioner had filed the subject petition seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry forward an amount of Rs. 13,94,961/- of CENVAT credit plus a sum of Rs. 8,98,763/- as interest paid in Electronic Credit Ledger maintained under GST through GST 3B return. This court dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to treat this petition as a representation with regard to grant of interest on the alleged delayed carry forward of the CENVAT credit in accordance with law.

In the present case there was a valid e-way bill in support of the transportation. It is only because of non-production of the delivery challan that the penalty has been assessed and imposed. Though possession of all document in support of transportation is the fundamental requirement of law, but as it appears that, the petitioner did not have the intention to evade tax, accordingly, imposition of penalty at the rate of 200% of the tax payable appears to be highly disproportionate and not in accordance with the provisions of law.

Without delving into the merits of the instant case, it is crystal clear that an opportunity of ‘personal hearing’ was not afforded to the petitioner which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, 2017. let there be a writ of Certiorari issued against the order passed by the Respondent. These orders are quashed and set aside.

In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for cancellation of the impugned detention order. The specific case of the petitioner is that there is no allegation against the petitioner but the entire allegation has been made against the supplier from whom the petitioner procured the goods. The petitioner being no way connected with any of the allegations that has been levelled against the supplier Company, cannot be made liable to pay penalty as has been assessed. In view of the above, the order of Detention and the subsequent order imposing penalty are liable to be set aside and quashed.