The petitioner challenged the cancellation of their GST registration, arguing that the order lacked proper reasoning and was issued mechanically without adherence to legal provisions. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The court found that the cancellation order lacked sufficient reasoning and set it aside, directing the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing.

Draft Reply to Notice Under Section 125 for Penalty Regarding Rule 86B Non-Compliance

The petitioner’s goods were detained due to the absence of a State E-way Bill, though the Central E-way Bill was available. The penalty order was passed, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. The court quashed the penalty order, citing previous judgments that during the relevant period, the requirement for a State E-way Bill was not enforceable.

The petitioner challenged the order demanding recovery of inadmissible ITC and penalty under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The court quashed the order, holding that the failure to provide the Verification Report, which was relied upon by the adjudicating authority, violated the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner-firm challenged the cancellation of its GST registration due to the non-filing of returns, attributed to the illness of the proprietor’s grandfather. The writ petition was allowed, directing the restoration of the firm’s GST registration, as the court found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The court exercised its powers under Article 226 to condone the delay and restore the appeal for adjudication on merits.

The petitioner applied for the cancellation of their GST registration with effect from 14.04.2024, but faced delays in processing due to additional requests for information from the tax authorities. The court directed the respondent to consider the cancellation application in accordance with the applicable laws and clarified that pending proceedings should not prevent the cancellation process.

The petitioner challenged the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act and DGST Act based on an audit report, alleging discrepancies in ITC claims. The petitioner contended that the audit process was flawed, and its responses were disregarded. The court directed the adjudicating authority to independently assess the petitioner`s replies to the SCN without relying on the audit report.

The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 73(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, concerning the demand for non-compliance with return filing timelines. The petitioner invoked the insertion of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, which allows ITC claims for certain financial years, filed by November 30, 2021. The court granted an interim stay on the impugned order, considering the petitioner had made a prima facie case.

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order passed under Sections 61, 73, and 50 of the TNGST Act, 2017, which led to recovery proceedings from the petitioner’s bank account. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent to defer recovery proceedings until the petitioner’s appeal is adjudicated by the appellate authority, ensuring no immediate recovery action.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the order dated 13.04.2023 (hereafter the impugned order), whereby the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 15.08.2021. The petitioner also prays that directions be issued to the respondent to enable the petitioner to file his returns for the month of February, 2023.

1. The petitioner impugns an order dated 27.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the DGST Act) for the tax period from April 2018 to March 2019.

The petitioner, in custody since 18.10.2023 in connection with alleged GST offenses under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(f)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, has been granted regular bail. The court considered the period of incarceration and the documentary nature of the allegations, noting that the trial could take time.