The Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, considering the gravity of the offence, that petitioner has taken a fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth of Rs. 20,28,40,841/-, and therefore this court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the bail application of accused-petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

The order impugned herein calls for interference on the basis that the petitioner did not produce payment details although the petitioner had submitted a trade payables ageing report indicating that none of the payments to the petitioner`s vendors were made beyond 180 days and that the petitioner expressly requested for a personal hearing and Such personal hearing was not granted. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The assessing officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, take into account documents produced by the petitioner and, thereafter, issue a fresh assessment order.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in appeal and the order imposing penalty under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act. When the the error in the documents is only that of a clerical or typographical error, the initial burden of proof lies on the department to show there was intention to evade tax. In the present case the department has failed to do so and infact has not even tried to do so. The department has accordingly failed to shift the burden of proof on the petitioner as the only error found by the department was that the vehicle number was incorrect. Impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

The petitioner submits that the credit was reversed entirely on the basis that the refund orders were not uploaded in the portal. Further, should be provided an opportunity to place the relevant documents before the assessing officer. The interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to place these documents for the consideration of the assessing officer. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration and the petitioner shall submit all relevant documents and upon receipt thereof, the assessing officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter pass order afresh.

The petitioner has not been able to rebut the presumption of evasion of taxes, as he has not been able to explain the absence of invoice and the E-Way Bill. Production of these documents subsequent to the interception cannot absolve the petitioner from the liability of penalty as the very purpose of imposing penalty is to act as a deterrent to persons who intend to avoid paying taxes owed to the Government. In view of this court, no interference is required with regard to the impugned orders and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed

Considering the fact that the petitioner had joined the investigation consequent to the orders passed by this Court, interim bail granted is hereby confirmed, subject to conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Further the petitioner will not tamper with the evidence nor will influence the witnesses and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.

It appears that the claim was rejected entirely on the ground that the GSTR-3B returns did not reflect the ITC claim. Therefore, interference is warranted with the orders impugned. Hence, the orders impugned herein are quashed and these matters are remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to place all documents pertaining to its ITC claims before the assessing officer and upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue fresh assessment orders

The entire demand under the assessment order was satisfied by way of the remittance made by the bank to the tax department and therefore, revenue interest is fully protected at this juncture. If the Contention of the petitioner is found to be correct, the reversal of ITC to that extent may warrant revision. Therefore, the impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration and the petitioner is permitted to submit a reply. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order.

Petitioner impugns order passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act provisionally attaching the cash credit accounts of the petitioners. The petition is disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to impugn the fresh attachment order dated 13.12.2023 in accordance with law. The question of validity of repeated issuance of attachment orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act is left open

Petitioner impugns order passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The petition is disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to impugn the fresh attachment order dated 13.12.2023 in accordance with law. The question of validity of repeated issuance of attachment orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act is left open.

The writ petition is disposed of and the order is set aside. The petitioner may treat the said order to be the final notice issued to him and file its reply together with all supporting documents and thereupon the respondent may fix a short date for hearing with at least one week notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned order after hearing the petitioner.

There is no reasoning in the said show cause notice and in the impugned order as to why the cancellation has been done retrospectively. Hence, the petition is disposed of and the impugned show cause notice and order of cancellation are accordingly set aside with a direction to restore the GST registration of the petitioner subject to complying with Rule 23 of Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017.