Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to make payment of GST along with interest, on the value of work done for all contracts for which agreement were entered into with PWD/RED before 01.07.2017. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to move a fresh representation before the respondent.

These Writ Petitions have been filed, challenging the impugned orders along with summary of Order of even date in Form DRC-07, passed by the first respondent and quash the same as the same being arbitrary, illegal, in violation of principal natural justice and ultra vires the provisions of Section 88 of the CGST Act and SGST Act. In the present case, the issue of non-availability of the funds with the Official Liquidator for disbursement of the claims, is yet to be decided. Therefore, at present there is no cause of action arose to initiate against the Ex.Directors to recover the sales tax dues payable by the Company in liquidation. Therefore, the present action taken by the respondents in passing the impugned orders of demand which is in liquidation and serving on the petitioner, is not sustainable. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed.

These Writ Petitions have been filed, challenging the impugned orders passed by the respondents and quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires the provisions of Section 50 and 74 of the CGST Act/SGST Act. It is not the case of the petitioners that no opportunity was afforded during adjudication of the proceedings and passing the impugned orders. This Court does not find any violation of principles of natural justice and deprival of any constitutional rights. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petitions

The petitioner assails an order of cancellation of registration with effect from 31.12.2022. The question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner was provided a reasonable opportunity before the drastic order of cancellation of registration was issued. From the show cause notice, it appears that such notice was digitally signed by the Goods and Services Tax Network. When the said show cause notice is read with the impugned order, it is quite evident that the whole process has been undertaken mechanically. The order cancelling the petitioner`s GST registration is quashed.

Challenge has been raised to the order passed by respondent whereby the said authority has blocked ITC of value Rs. 53,61,832/- in exercise of his power under Rule 86A of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The only reason to block ITC is the satisfaction recorded by the respondent is that the said ITC was not genuine since the supplier/selling dealer - M/s Pushpendra Singh was found to be non-existent at his disclosed place of business, at District Hapur. since the order is wholly ex-parte, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction, subject to the petitioner filing an application before respondent to recall the order.

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an appellate order dated 08.02.2022 rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 7,34,732/-. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner was entitled to refund if the petitioner could avail of the exclusion in terms of notification No.13/2022-C.T. Under Section 54 of the CGST Act, an exporter of services is entitled to refund in respect of unutilised ITC. The relevant date is the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange, as per Explanation (2) to sub-section (14) of Section 54. Even as regards FIRCs issued in April 2018, if the benefit of the above notification is extended to the petitioner, the refund application dated 04.09.2020 would be within the two year period, which is to be computed from the relevant date, as per sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the CGST Act. Hence, the impugned order is quashed.

Heard Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

Since in the present cases, both tax and penalty are imposed against the petitioners and admittedly, an adverse decision is contemplated against the petitioners, therefore, under Section 75(4) of the Act of 2017, an opportunity of hearing was mandatorily required to be given by the department to the petitioners and merely marking the same as "NO" in the option cannot entitle the department to pass an order without giving any opportunity or even without waiting for the petitioners to appear on the date fixed. In view thereof, all the writ petitions are allowed on the sole ground of opportunity of hearing and the orders impugned in all four writ petitions are quashed.

As to the current status of registration of the petitioner, has already been surrendered with effect from 31.03.2019. The petitioner is not seen to be a person aggrieved as adjudication proceedings have arisen upon violation etc. being noted by the competent authorities. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Advisory on introduction of new Tables 14 & 15 in GSTR-1

There is difference between rectification and an order on review. There is no power on the assessing authority to review its assessment order. This court does not find this writ petition has any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

Challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the CGST. Since, no Tribunal is constituted, the challenge is to the order by way of the petition. Issue NOTICE returnable on 07.12.2023.The order initiating steps of recovery is hereby stayed till the next date of hearing