Section 73/74 of the CGST Act, 2017--- Order ----- The petitioner challenged the order dated 15.12.2023. The court observed that the respondent has not considered all these issues in the order impugned, it is just and necessary that the 1st respondent reconsiders the matter after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

The petitioner was issued a show cause notice (SCN) for cancellation of registration on 02/02/2023 for non-filing of returns for the last 6 months. On receipt of SCN the petitioner filed the returns for august & september for the assessment period 2022-23. The order of cancellation was issued thereafter on 15/03/2023. By the time of cancellation, on account of the filing of the returns for two months, it could not have been concluded that the petitioner had not filed returns for a continuous period of six months. In those circumstances, the impugned order of cancellation cannot be sustained, and the registration of the petitioner shall stand restored.

The issue relates to tax liability on the difference in GSTR 3B & GSTR 1 and reversal of ITC on the purchase of paint for building. Petitioner paid the GST amount on the difference in GSTR 3B & GSTR 1 even before the issuance of the intimation by the department. Further reversal of ITC is not valid as there is no basis for concluding the purchase of paint.Since the petitioner`s reply and the documents annexed thereto were not taken into consideration, the impugned order is unsustainable as regards these issues. The impugned order is set aside & matter is remanded for reconsideration.

2. Challenge to order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ward-II, Circle-D, Zone-II, Jaipur, Commercial Tax Department is premised mainly on the ground that the notices issued to the petitioner did not comply with the mandate of law. Challenge to the impugned order is also on the ground of violation of statutory scheme incorporating principles of natural justice.

1. Heard Shri Shrey Ashat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 28.12.2023 whereby the Show Cause Notice dated 24.10.2018 and 14.02.2020 have been disposed of.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 01.01.2021 whereby the GST Registration of the petitioner was cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.12.2017. Petitioner also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 01.09.2020.

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

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

1. Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri Rishi Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

The expiry of the e-way bill due to breakdown of vehicle leading to delay in transportation of goods is not the ground for imposing penalty u/s 129(3) of the act. The breach of not extending time of e way bill is only a technical breach.

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated April 6, 2023 passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit, Fatehpur and the order dated May 16, 2023 passed by the respondent No.1/Additional Commissioner, Grade-2, (Appeal), Judicial Division-Third, State Tax, Prayagraj.