This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 19.03.2020 on the premise that it has been made within 2 days of issuance of Form GST DRC- 01 which is the summary of the show cause notice. This Court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the impugned order suffers from more than one infirmity. Firstly, DRC-01 is not supported by the Annexure to show cause notice and thus the petitioner was not provided with the particulars necessary to respond. Secondly, the assessment order is made on 17.03.2020. One fails to understand as to how the show cause notice as well as the assessment order has been made on the very same day. In view of the above infirmities, which this Court finds to be fatal, the impugned order is set-aside.

The petitioner’s apprehension that he would be coerced to deposit the further amount can be addressed by directing the respondents not to accept any amount of tax from the petitioner since the petitioner has unequivocally made clear that he does not wish to voluntarily deposit any tax with the concerned authority and there is no dispute that the petitioner cannot be compelled to deposit the tax without following the procedure under Section 73, 74 and 79 of the CGST Act

The present writ petition is allowed taking into consideration Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Authority to reconsider the case after the petitioner deposit 10% of the amount assessed within a period of fifteen days and appear before the Assessing Authority with all the documents and evidence in his possession, for passing fresh orders in accordance with the law.

Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the order whereby the State Tax Officer has declined the refund on the ground that the Department is in the process of filing an appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the refund application was recommended to be rejected. It is clear that the State is only dilly-delaying on the issue and merely on account of the fact that the State is in the process of filing an appeal, this court does not feel that the State is justified in divesting the petitioner of his fruits of litigation which have accrued to him. Resultantly, this court quash the said order

he petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a Show Cause Notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why its registration should not be cancelled. The impugned order does not reflect any reason for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. It merely states that the tax payer had not given any response to the impugned SCN. The SCN, as stated above, was incapable of eliciting any meaningful response. The impugned SCN and the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration are set aside. The petitioner’s GST registration shall be restored forthwith.

[ORDER UNDER SECTION 98(4) OF THE CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 AND UNDER SECTION 98(4) OF THE TEALANGANA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017.]

. Petitioner seeks quashing of show cause notice dated 02.03.2022, whereby husband of the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the GST registration of his firm be not cancelled.

Heard Sri Utkarsh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agrawal, learned Standing Counsel for the State

Petitioner impugns show cause notice dated 03.08.2023 requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the GST registration of the petitioner be not cancelled.

Petitioner impugns show cause notice dated 03.08.2023 requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the GST registration of the petitioner be not cancelled.

During the course of arguments it is transpired that admittedly there is no express/physical letter by the respondents on record showing cancellation of the registration of any of the dealers / suppliers in question retrospectively particularly for relevant assessment year 2018-19. Under such circumstances, nothing survives in the show cause notice to address upon on merits to the extent of discrepancy pointed out in the notice. Therefore, the impugned notices to that extent are hereby quashed.

The applicant has filed this First application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond.