The petitioner challenged the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act and DGST Act based on an audit report, alleging discrepancies in ITC claims. The petitioner contended that the audit process was flawed, and its responses were disregarded. The court directed the adjudicating authority to independently assess the petitioner`s replies to the SCN without relying on the audit report.

The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 73(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, concerning the demand for non-compliance with return filing timelines. The petitioner invoked the insertion of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, which allows ITC claims for certain financial years, filed by November 30, 2021. The court granted an interim stay on the impugned order, considering the petitioner had made a prima facie case.

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order passed under Sections 61, 73, and 50 of the TNGST Act, 2017, which led to recovery proceedings from the petitioner’s bank account. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent to defer recovery proceedings until the petitioner’s appeal is adjudicated by the appellate authority, ensuring no immediate recovery action.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the order dated 13.04.2023 (hereafter the impugned order), whereby the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 15.08.2021. The petitioner also prays that directions be issued to the respondent to enable the petitioner to file his returns for the month of February, 2023.

1. The petitioner impugns an order dated 27.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the DGST Act) for the tax period from April 2018 to March 2019.

The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, citing overlapping discrepancies in multiple show cause notices. The court quashed the impugned order, stating that the petitioner is denied a fair opportunity to present a reply due to procedural confusion. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration, conditional upon the petitioner paying Rs. 1.4 crores within four weeks.

The petitioner, a legal heir of the proprietor of M/s Mandy Enterprises, sought a refund of Rs. 28,84,115/- from the electronic cash register. The refund claim, initially rejected, was approved by the appellate authority. Despite the appellate order, the refund was delayed, leading to a petition. The court directed the respondents to immediately process the refund with applicable interest.

The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 73 of the CGST and DGST Acts for the financial year 2018-19, citing a technical glitch causing an output tax liability mismatch. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration after granting a personal hearing.

The High Court set aside the order dated 13.06.2024, which cancelled the petitioner’s GST registration retrospectively from 01.07.2017. The court found that the petitioner had not been provided a fair opportunity to respond to the show cause notice, which did not mention a date or time for a hearing. Additionally, the petitioner had not received the GSTI field visit report, which formed the basis of the cancellation.

Draft Reply Request to Drop Proceedings Under Section 74 of CGST Act

The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 73 of the CGST and SGST Acts, alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on the cancellation of the suppliers` registrations. The petitioner contended that the suppliers were registered when the supplies were made, and GST was paid. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The High Court quashed the impugned order demanding ?9,44,35,415 for alleged excess ITC claim, finding that the petitioner had valid ITC under a different GSTIN. The court ruled that the Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST applied, directing the authorities to adjust ITC between the petitioner’s two GSTINs and pass a fresh order after reconsideration.