In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for cancellation of the impugned detention order. The specific case of the petitioner is that there is no allegation against the petitioner but the entire allegation has been made against the supplier from whom the petitioner procured the goods. The petitioner being no way connected with any of the allegations that has been levelled against the supplier Company, cannot be made liable to pay penalty as has been assessed. In view of the above, the order of Detention and the subsequent order imposing penalty are liable to be set aside and quashed.

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks consideration of a representation to grant time for payment of tax. On examining Section 79(1)(c)(iv) of the TNGST Act, it appears that the proper officer has the discretion to extend time for making payment if he has issued a notice for recovery of amounts in terms of clause (c)(i) of Section 79(1) of the TNGST Act. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the third respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner`s representation by taking into account the applicable provisions of the TNGST Act.

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of the cancellation order dated 27.01.2021, whereby the GST Registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. Petitioner also seeks setting aside of the show-cause notice dated 13.01.2020 which led to the passing of the cancellation order dated 27.01.2021. Petitioner also seeks setting aside of appellate order dated 23.11.2022, whereby the appeal seeking setting aside of cancellation was rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Sri Sanjay Sareen, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

In both these writ petitions, separate assessment orders dated 09.10.2023 in respect of distinct assessment periods are impugned.

Rishi Kumar, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

1. The present Report dated 30.11.2023 had been received from the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (hereinafter referred to as the “DGAP”) on 04.12.2023 by the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”) after a detailed investigation under Rule 133(4) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”).

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

Advisory on Payment through Credit Card (CC)/Debit Card (DC) and Unified Payments Interface (UPI)

Advisory for furnishing bank account details by registered taxpayers under Rule 10A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

- This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the penalty order under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. The only discrepancy that was found at the time of Detention was that one of the E-Way Bills had expired. Apart from this discrepancy, there is no other finding with regard to intention of the petitioner to evade tax. This Court is of the view that such a technical violation by itself without any intention to evade tax cannot lead to imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act.

1. Heard Sri Tanmay Sadh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.