This Court holds that the petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing. But in order to avail of such an opportunity, the petitioner shall first make payment of up-to-date GST with statutory interest and penalty within three weeks from the date

This is not a fit case to grant relief of pre-arrest bail to the applicant. The anticipatory bail application is rejected

Once, it is found that the selling dealer was bogus firm, the goods carrying the e-way bill generated by such firm is of no benefit to the petitioners as the same has been used for transiting the goods from non bona fide dealer from undisclosed place. This court find that no interference is required in the orders passed by the respondent.

This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order has been passed by total nonapplication of mind, therefore, the impugned order has to be necessarily quashed and the matter will have to be remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner, including granting them the right of personal hearing.

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.

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for order or direction commanding respondent nos. 1, 2, and 4 herein to direct the appropriate respondent to remit the amount of GST on works contract services provided on or before and after 1st July 2017 i.e. before or after the introduction of GST Act and ongoing project and to forthwith recall, cancel or rescind the impugned DRC-01A dated 07.09.2023 and attached show cause notice dated 5th September 2023 issued under Section 73 of GST Act for the period 2017- 2018 annexed to the petition in ‘P5’ issued by the respondent no. 3 and all subsequent proceedings thereon

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for order or direction on the respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5 to pay the liability of GST incurred on works contract executed and completed after 1st July, 2017 wherein the contracts were awarded in the pre-GST regime or post-GST regime and therefore it was impossible on part of the petitioners as well as the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to include the component of GST in the value of contract awarded prior to GST legislation coming into force or post GST contracts, ongoing projects in the period of 2017-2018 and the petitioners are also challenging the impugned summary of show cause notice dated 19.09.2023 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “GST Act”) for the period 2017-2018 and subsequent notices of the GST Act, issued by the respondent no. 3.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for order or direction on the respondent no. 1 and 4 to pay the liability of GST incurred on the works contract executed and completed after 1st July 2017 wherein the contracts were awarded in the pre-GST regime or post-GST regime and therefore it was impossible on part of the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 4 to include the component of GST in the value of the contract awarded prior to GST legislation coming into force or post GST contracts, ongoing projects and the petitioner is also challenging the impugned summary of show cause notice dated 05.09.2023 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “GST Act”) for the period 2017-2018 and subsequent notices of the GST Act, issued by the Respondent no. 3.

Writ petition is allowed and the impugned show cause notice is quashed and set aside.

Since the matter has not been decided by the Nodal Officer in terms of order passed by this Court, the impugned notice ought not to have been issued. Till the decision by the Nodal Officer, the impugned notice dated 4.10.2022 shall be kept in abeyance

The instant anticipatory bail application is allowed

The show cause notice must clearly state the allegations that the concerned notice has to meet. This being the essence of a show cause notice, any notice that does not qualify this criterion, cannot be considered as a show cause notice.