1. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6.

1. Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Shiv Prakash Dubey, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

A taxpayer’s registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted. Both the show cause notices and the impugned order are bereft of any reasoning and particulars and are accordingly not sustainable and therefore, are set aside. It would be, however, open to the respondent to take further action in accordance with law inter alia, cancellation of registration with retrospective effect, however, the same would be in accordance with law and pursuant to a proper Show Cause Notice and an opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner. Respondents are also not precluded from taking any steps for recovery of any tax, penalty or interest that may be due from the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly disposed o

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 18.05.2023, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner impugning the Order-in-Original dated 25.08.2022 has been dismissed on the limited ground of delay.

Issues Involved :- This is a writ petiton under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of penalty under section 129(3) of CGST Act. There is no dispute to the fact that the goods were not in variance with the invoice and that the department was not able to indicate any kind of intention of the petitioner to evade tax apart from the technical error of non filling up of Part B of the E-Way Bill. Since the defect was of a technical nature only and without any intention to evade tax. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Act is not sustainable.

1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it remains undisputed that the petitioner`s registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 was cancelled on 13.4.2022 w.e.f. 28.2.2022. It is not the case of the revenue that the said registration has ever been revived or that the petitioner ever sought revival of that registration.

The petitioner assails an order rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner. On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the application was filed under the category “Any Others”. According to a refund claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground that such refund claim does not fall within the specific categories enumerated in Circular No.125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019. Therefore, the order impugned is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to reconsider the application in accordance with law.

By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned show-cause on the ground that the same is in violation of principle of natural justice and is nonspeaking and without considering the reply/details submission made by the petitioner on 26th December, 2023 against intimation to pre-show cause notice. This writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned show-cause notice to the writ petition and the matter is remanded back to the GST authority.

Payment of GST for grant of mining lease/royalty by the petitioner shall remain stayed until further orders.

SC is not inclined to interfere. Special Leave Petition is accordingly, dismissed

What is treatment of promotional item given free to end consumers by FMCG companies?

Any person making inter-state supply has to compulsorily obtain registration and therefore in such cases, section 9(4) will not come into play.