Both the Petitioners and the department want cancellation of the GST registration of the Petitioner, though for a different reason. Hence the impugned order is modified to the limited extent that the same shall be operative with effect from the period upto which the Petitioner has filed its GST returns subject to him complying with the requirements of Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Neither the Show Cause Notice nor the impugned order refers to the petitioner not being found at the registered address and the order is completely bereft of any reasoning nor does the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation. Accordingly, the same cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The GST registration of the petitioner is restored subject to him making all necessary compliances and filing of the requisite returns and information inter alia in terms of Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

In all these writ petitions, show cause notices issued in respect of distinct assessment periods are challenged. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying electrical lighting or signaling equipment used in motor vehicles. As a registered person under applicable GST laws, the petitioner was filing returns and paying applicable taxes by classifying the goods under chapter heading 8512 of the then Central Excise Tariff. After the introduction of GST, the rate of CGST payable on various goods were notified under Notification No.1/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. In the initial period commencing from 01.07.2017, the parts manufactured by the petitioner and falling under Chapter 8512 attracted 28% GST in the aggregate. With effect from 16.11.2017, under Notification No.41/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017, the rate of tax was reduced to 18% in the aggregate. Therefore, the petitioner was paying taxes on these items at 18% from 14.11.2017.

1. This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the appellate order dated August 30, 2019 passed by Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal), Commercial Tax, Jhansi/the respondent No. 3 and the penalty order dated March 14, 2019 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, (Mobile Squad) Unit Jalaun, Agra/the respondent No.2. Further, a mandamus has been sought directing the respondent authorities to refund the amount of tax and penalty deposited by the petitioner.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 08.08.2023, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 03.07.2017. Petitioner also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 29.10.2021.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

Heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

1. Petitioner impugns order of cancellation of registration dated 10.06.2022 whereby the GST registration of the Petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017. Petitioner also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 18.11.2021.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 27.12.2023, whereby the show cause notice dated 25.09.2023, proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed and a demand of Rs. 22,10,220.00 including penalty has been raised against the petitioner. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

An assessment order is the subject of challenge. The impugned assessment order was issued without hearing the petitioner and, consequently, without considering the petitioner`s explanation and any documents in support thereof. Therefore, the impugned assessment order is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.

Petitioner impugns order whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed and a demand of Rs. 51,64,782.00 including penalty has been raised against the petitioner. If the Proper Officer was of the view that reply was not satisfactory and further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the petitioner, however, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. n view of the above, the order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.

Petitioner impugns order whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed of and a demand of Rs. 8,22,82,330.00 including penalty has been raised against the petitioner. If the Proper Officer was of the view that further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. In view of the above, the order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.