This writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 29.09.2023.

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

The Petitioner has by his own conduct disabled himself from availing the remedy available to him in law, if indeed the payment was made under protest. Since there is no material to support the contention of the Petitioner that he made payment of the demanded tax under protest, the Court is not persuaded to accept such submission at this stage.

This Court has categorically held that it is for the seizing authority to establish by evidence that e-way bill was being reused. In the present case, there is no evidence produced by the seizing authority that there is a reuse of the e-way bill by the petitioner

The petition is allowed-in-part, quashing the impugned Audit Report dated 31.12.2022 [Annexure-E]. The petitioner is reserved liberty to file its response with the third respondent on or before 27.02.2023 and for the purposes of Section 65[6] of the KGST/CGST Act, the prescribed thirty days shall be computed from 27.02.2023

The petitioner has challenged the impugned show cause notice on the ground that the same has been issued in violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the TNGST Act, 2017. This Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit a reply to the impugned show cause notice within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the said reply, the first respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due consideration to the objections raised by the petitioner in the reply.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act. The present writ petition deserves to be allowed, as admittedly for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner a notice as provided for under Rule 142(1A) of the Rules was not issued, which provided for communication of details of any tax, interest and penalties as ascertained by the officer.

The grievance of the petitioner is that before passing final order on assessment, Rule 142(1) of the CGST Act is mandatory to be followed and GST DRC-01 has to be uploaded electronically on the website. In the facts of the present case, it is nowhere stated in the reply filed by the respondents that they had uploaded the notice on the website of the revenue as per Rule 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 before passing final orders. Hence, the present writ petitions are allowed.

The only issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the impugned authorisation is in accordance with law. The petitioner has also challenged the consequential intimation letters. This writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit a reply to the impugned show cause notice and the intimation letters.

This court had allowed a petition and had remanded the matter mainly on the ground that in terms of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, it is mandatory that an opportunity of hearing be granted which admittedly has not been done.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order by which the proceedings of Section 74 of UP GST Act was initiated demanding Rs. 12,32,148/- as wrong availment of input tax credit. In the case in hand, the petitioner has only brought on record the tax invoices, e-way bills, GR and payment through the banking channel, but no such details such as payment of freight charges, acknowledgment of taking delivery of goods, toll receipts and payment thereof has been provided. Thus in the absence of these documents, the actual physical movement of goods and genuineness of transportation as well as transaction cannot be established and in such circumstances, further no proof of filing of GSTR 2 A has been brought on record, the proceeding has rightly been initiated against the petitioner

This writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on refund application.