By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks consideration of a representation to grant time for payment of tax. On examining Section 79(1)(c)(iv) of the TNGST Act, it appears that the proper officer has the discretion to extend time for making payment if he has issued a notice for recovery of amounts in terms of clause (c)(i) of Section 79(1) of the TNGST Act. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the third respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner`s representation by taking into account the applicable provisions of the TNGST Act.

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of the cancellation order dated 27.01.2021, whereby the GST Registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. Petitioner also seeks setting aside of the show-cause notice dated 13.01.2020 which led to the passing of the cancellation order dated 27.01.2021. Petitioner also seeks setting aside of appellate order dated 23.11.2022, whereby the appeal seeking setting aside of cancellation was rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Sri Sanjay Sareen, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

In both these writ petitions, separate assessment orders dated 09.10.2023 in respect of distinct assessment periods are impugned.

Rishi Kumar, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

1. The present Report dated 30.11.2023 had been received from the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (hereinafter referred to as the “DGAP”) on 04.12.2023 by the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”) after a detailed investigation under Rule 133(4) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”).

- This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the penalty order under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. The only discrepancy that was found at the time of Detention was that one of the E-Way Bills had expired. Apart from this discrepancy, there is no other finding with regard to intention of the petitioner to evade tax. This Court is of the view that such a technical violation by itself without any intention to evade tax cannot lead to imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act.

1. Heard Sri Tanmay Sadh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6.

1. Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Shiv Prakash Dubey, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

A taxpayer’s registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted. Both the show cause notices and the impugned order are bereft of any reasoning and particulars and are accordingly not sustainable and therefore, are set aside. It would be, however, open to the respondent to take further action in accordance with law inter alia, cancellation of registration with retrospective effect, however, the same would be in accordance with law and pursuant to a proper Show Cause Notice and an opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner. Respondents are also not precluded from taking any steps for recovery of any tax, penalty or interest that may be due from the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly disposed o

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 18.05.2023, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner impugning the Order-in-Original dated 25.08.2022 has been dismissed on the limited ground of delay.