The petitioner does not dispute that it has the right to assail the orders in appeal, this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction does not deem it appropriate to entertain the petition which is accordingly dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to assail the impugned orders in terms of the appeal as provided in the statute. In case, if the petitioner files the appeal before the appellate authority within a period of three weeks from today then the same shall be considered on its own merits and the issue of limitation if involved shall be considered sympathetically by the appellate authority.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 29.08.2023. The petitioner submitted that the impugned order was posted in the GST common portal, which went unnoticed and that the petitioner realised that the impugned order has been passed only after the petitioner received threat from the respondent to pay the amount. The Court observed that a liberty can be given to the petitioner to file statutory appeal.

An order in original dated 05.12.2023 is challenged on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. The confirmed tax proposal pertains to mismatch between the GSTR-3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR-2A. Such tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice. Therefore, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms. The impugned order dated 05.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition challenges a notice under Section 65 of the CGST Act, arguing that the Central GST authorities cannot initiate proceedings on the same subject matter already addressed by State GST authorities for assessment years 2019-20 to 2022-23. The petitioner`s counsel contended this is impermissible under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The court noted the audit notice acknowledged Section 6(2)(b) and clarified no restriction exists for different subject matters. The petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to respond to the audit notice.

While setting aside the order of rejection of appeal dated 28th March, 2024 as appearing in Form GST APL 02 and taking note of the fact that no fruitful purpose will be served by remanding the aforesaid matter on the issue of condonation of delay to the Appellate Authority and also considering the explanation given by the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner has been able to sufficiently explain the delay in filing the appeal belatedly. In view thereof, I restore the aforesaid appeal to its original file and number and direct the Appellate Authority to hear out the same in accordance with law on merit within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.

he petitioner challenged order dt. 28.07.2022 declining to consider the applications for refund of GST for the financial years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 made through an email. The court observed that why the reasons assigned by the petitioner cannot be accepted for its inability to file refund applications in electronic mode/online mode and why its manual applications cannot be entertained having regard to Rule 97A, which specifically permits such manual filing of applications. The respondent ignored this and instead placed reliance on a circular dt. 18.11.2019. It is elementary that a circular issued by the department cannot go contrary to a rule framed by the competent authority. As regards the petitioner not being a registered person and therefore not entitled to seek refund under Section 54 (3) is concerned, sub-section (1) of Section 54, permits any person to make an application for refund of tax.

Assessment orders under Section 63 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in respect of specific assessment periods are assailed in these writ petitions. The petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax proposal on merits. Since the petitioner has remitted 10% of the disputed tax demand under the old registration, it is open to the petitioner to apply for refund of the same. If such application is made, the same should be considered and disposed of within a period of 30 days. In order to secure revenue interest in the meantime, as agreed to by the petitioner, the petitioner shall remit 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of each assessment period. Such remittance shall be made within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without awaiting the outcome of the remand application.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 28.12.2023 rejecting the petitioner`s request for refund. No reasons have been recorded for concluding that the claim does not fall within the ambit of sub-section (1) of Section 77. The matter is remanded for re-consideration.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the second respondent rejecting the petitioner`s appeal against the order dated 06.10.2023. The petitioner has filed the appeal before the second respondent 14 days after the limitation expired for filing the appeal and thus, the appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Commissioner. This Court is of the view that the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Commissioner to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner depositing additionally 20% of the disputed tax over and above 10% is as contemplated under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments.

The petitioner had entered into an agreement for development / sale with KG Foundation Private Limited. The petitioner states that KG Foundation collected GST at 18% in relation to the construction activities. On the basis that GST should have been collected at 5% and not at 18%, the present writ petition was filed. The petitioner paid GST at 18% to KG Foundation and, therefore, the application for refund is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. The registered person under applicable GST enactments is KG Foundation and not the petitioner. Consequently, he submits that the refund application should have been filed by the registered person and not by the petitioner. He also points out that such application is required to be filed within two years as per Section 54 of applicable GST enactments. GST is imposed on construction services on forward charge basis on the provider of services. In this case, services were provided by KG Foundation and not by the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of learned Additional Government Pleader is liable to be accepted. This writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 8th March 2024 rejecting the petitioner’s appeal on the ground of delay and the petitioner had failed to make out sufficient cause for filing the appeal beyond the statutory period. The court observed that justice will be sub-served if the appeal is directed to be heard out on merits subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the State Revenue Authorities.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.03.2024 on the ground that the petitioner`s reply was not considered. On account of the failure of the respondent to duly consider the petitioner`s reply and record reasons for rejecting such reply, orders impugned herein cannot be sustained. The impugned orders in original are set aside and these matters are remanded for reconsideration.