1. Heard Sri Tarun Gulati, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Agarwal and Sri Kumar Sambhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5 and Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for Union of India.

1. Petitioner impugns Order-in-Original dated 29.04.2024 whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 24.12.2023 proposing a demand of Rs. 7,02,71,577.00/- against the petitioner has been disposed of and a demand including penalty has been created against the petitioner for Financial Year 2018-19. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 08.12.2023 whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 26.09.2023 proposing a demand of Rs 12,03,064.80/- against the petitioner has been disposed of and a demand including penalty has been created against the petitioner. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 29.12.2023, whereby the show cause notice dated 05.12.2023 has been adjudicated and a demand created.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 27.01.2021 whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017 and also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 13.01.2021.

Petitioner impugns order whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed of and a demand including penalty has been created against the petitioner. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.

Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer’s registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed, and the taxpayer was compliant. Order dated 05.08.2022 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The GST registration of the petitioner is restored. Petitioner shall, however, make all necessary compliances and file the requisite returns and information inter alia in terms of Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Petitioner impugns order whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed of and a demand including penalty has been created against the petitioner. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.

The only discrepancy found by the authorities was that the e-way bill had expired. The reason for the expiry of e-way bill has been explained to the authorities, indicating that engine of the vehicle got failed and after being repaired, it was moved for its onward journey. This Court is unable to agree with the findings of the authorities, and accordingly, the impugned orders dated December 9, 2017 and May 8, 2019 are quashed and set aside. Court directs the respondents to refund the amount of tax and penalty deposited by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from date.

Seeks to amend the Notification no. 02/2017-CT dated 19.06.2017 with effect from 5th August, 2023

Seeks to amend Notification No. 02/2017-CT dated 19th June, 2017 to assign district of Kotputli-Behror to CGST Alwar Commissionerate

Guidelines for initiation of recovery proceedings before three months from the date of service of demand order- reg.