The petition is allowed, and the order dated 27.09.2021 [Annexure-A] is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner files returns within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Failing which, the cancellation order shall stand revive

The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner’s registration as expeditiously as possible. It is clarified that the restoration of the petitioner’s registration would not preclude the respondents from initiating appropriate proceedings for recovery of any tax, interest or penalty, if otherwise due from the petitioner, in accordance with law.

By filling this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to set aside notice which was for confiscation of goods or conveyance and levy of penalty under section 130 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The proceedings are remanded to the competent authority of the respondents, which shall decide the subject matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case.

The matter is remanded back to the respondent to consider the grievance expressed by the petitioner against cancellation of GST registration and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

The prayer is for a mandamus directing the respondents to enable the petitioner to rectify clerical errors in the details uploaded by it in Form GSTR -1 for the period 2017-18 and cause amendment of the Forms. This Court is inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner and issues a mandamus to the respondents to do the needful to enable uploading of the rectified GSTR 1.

The Court is of the view that the issues and aspects raised in the petition on merits with regard to the challenge to the impugned order and rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner could be better agitated before the appellate tribunal. The present petition is dismissed on the said ground alone without expressing any opinion of the merits.

The learned Additional Solicitor General raises a preliminary objection that what is challenged in this petition is only a notice under Rule 142(1-A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which is not a show cause notice and therefore the challenge is premature. it would be appropriate to defer the hearing of the petition so that the learned ASG can take instructions on whether the case of the Petitioner is covered by the Circulars as sought to be contended by the Petitioners.

The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the CGST Act and challenges an order passed by the respondent rejecting the request for amendment of TRAN-1. the petitioner has categorically missed the bus, seeing as the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. has granted a window as a final opportunity for correction of all errors arising from filing of TRAN-1 and 2.

The challenge in this writ petition is to the notice under Section 70 (1) of CGST Act. this writ petition is allowed and the impugned portion of the notice issued under Section 70 (1) of GST Act i.e., “in view of the above explanation you are hereby requested to stop all further payments from here onwards until clearance is given by the undersigned” is set aside and liberty is given to the 3rd respondent to proceed in accordance with law so far as the other part of the notice issued by him under section 70 (1) of GST Act is concerned.

The appeal of the petitioner has been filed after a period of 6 months. The dismissal of the appeal by is seen to be in order.

The sum and substance of Section 75(4) is that a personal hearing shall be granted in all matters prior to the finalization of assessment except where the stand of the assessee is intended to be accepted by the Department. Thus, on this score, the officer has grossly erred in proceeding to finalize the impugned assessment in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order on the ground that it has been passed without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. At such a belated point of time, the Court is of the opinion that, the matter is not required to be remanded back to the authority for reconsideration. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.