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

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 26.12.2023, whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2023, proposing a demand of Rs. 20,07,15,517.00 against the Petitioner has been disposed of and a demand 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 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 28.12.2023, whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 22.09.2023, proposing a demand of Rs. 3,05,43,710.00 against the Petitioner has been disposed of and a demand 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 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 25.12.2023, whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 26.09.2023, proposing a demand of Rs. 44,48,488.00 against the Petitioner has been disposed of and a demand 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 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the notification no. 09/2023-CT by virtue of which the time limit provided under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 was respectively extended to 31.12.2023, 31.03.2024 and 30.06.2024 on the ground that the conditions precedent provided in explanation to Section 168(A) was not present on the date when the notification was issued. In view of the issue raised, let a notice returnable on 10.05.2024 be issued.

- The entire case of the prosecution is based on presumption and assumptions and there is not even an iota of evidence against the applicant. The role attributed to the present applicant is to the effect that present applicant has availed ineligible input tax credit of Rs. 07.45 Crores on the basis of purchases made from six registered entities, which according to the revenue are found to be non-existing. This Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 14.02.2023 whereby the GST registration of the Petitioner was cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017. Petitioner also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 07.10.2022.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 03.02.2023 whereby the GST registration of the Petitioner was cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017. Petitioner also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2021.

1. Heard Mr. Aloke Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rishi Kumar, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for the respondents. With the consent of parties, petition is taken up for final disposal.

An order in original dated 01.03.2024 is challenged insofar as it pertains to three issues. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and supply of tubes and pipes of iron and steel. Pursuant to show cause notice dated 30.06.2023, the petitioner replied on 08.09.2023. The order impugned herein was issued thereafter on 01.03.2024.

Petitioner impugns order whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice proposing a demand of Rs. 7,56,66,476.00 against the Petitioner has been disposed of and a demand including penalty has been raised against the Petitioner. Perusal of the Show Cause Notice shows that the Department has given separate headings i.e., under declaration of output tax; excess claim of Input Tax Credit [“ITC”]; and ITC claimed from cancelled dealers, return defaulters and tax non payers. The impugned order which had been passed solely on account that petitioner had not filed a reply cannot be sustained. The matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.