The petitioner was issued a show cause notice asking him to show cause as to why the registration certificate issued under the CGST Act in his favour should not be cancelled due to non-furnishing of returns in terms of Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017 for a continuous period of six or more months. This writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner shall approach the concerned authority within a period of two months from today seeking restoration of his GST registration.

This Court is of the view that any assessee/dealer who has filed the returns in GSTR- 9/9C in respect of the financial years from 2017-18 to 2021-22 before 31st August, 2023 should be eligible for concessional rate of late fee as prescribed in the notification dated 31.03.2023 for waiver of the amount of late fee referred to in Section 47 of the CGST Act

The main grievance of the petitioner is that only the Summary Order has been uploaded and the detailed order has not been uploaded, owing to which the petitioner is unable to challenge the same. The matter is remitted back to the authorities concerned for the purpose of re adjudication.

Supplies made to a Polytechnic could not be considered as supplies to an educational institution. The demand was founded on the basis that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

The petitioner has filed the petition, praying that the directions be issued for revoking the order cancelling of the petitioner’s GST registration. It is the petitioner’s case that GST registration was cancelled without issuance of any Show Cause Notice or without affording the petitioner, any opportunity to be heard. The impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s registration is void as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It does not set out any ground for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. Thus, said order cannot be sustained. This court consider it apposite to direct that the petitioner’s GST registration be restored forthwith.

The petitioner has challenged the seizure order passed by respondent under the provisions of the CGST Act. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to respondent to drop auction proceedings of the seized goods. This court is of considered opinion that the order to the extent it seeks to reject the prayer for release of goods in favour of the petitioner, cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed to the said extent only. The second respondent is directed to reconsider the issue relating to release of goods in favour of the petitioner keeping in mind the Circular dated 31.12.2018 and the fact that invoice and e-way bill were found accompanying, the consignment of seized goods.

Mr. Rajsekhar Rao, Learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes Appearing for the Respondent

Fairness is not a one-way street. The practice of entertaining writ petitions challenging legality of show cause notices inevitably result in stalling enquiries and retarding the investigative process meant to find the real facts with the participation and presence of the parties is to be deprecated. An assessee cannot choose to ignore all notices and steps taken by the respondent authorities who are bound to act in a time bound manner under the Act and thereafter take the plea of natural justice. This courts finds no illegality or perversity nor infraction of law nor procedural impropriety which warrants any interference with any of the impugned orders and steps taken pursuant thereto. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions stands dismissed.

The petitioners have filed the present petition, praying that respondents be directed to release an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- resumed/seized by respondent. The petitioners contend that the concerned officers had no power to seize cash under Section 67 of the CGST Act on the ground that the same was not satisfactorily explained. Concededly, the issue is covered by the earlier decisions of this Court in Deepak Khandelwal Proprietor. Accordingly, the present petition is required to be allowed and the respondents are liable to refund the money seized.

This Court is of the considered view that looking at any aspect, it appears that the petitioner had only made genuine transactions and the error had been committed only on the part of the auditor who had filed GSTR-10 returns after knowing about the cancellation of GSTIN registration of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the GSTIN registration No. is directed to be restored after an application for restoration of GSTIN registration by the petitioner. Accordingly this Writ Petition is disposed of.

The case is of the initial period of the GST regime. There were genuine difficulties faced by the assessees/dealers and even tax experts in understanding the GST regime. The petitioner has committed a bona fide mistake of depositing the KFC in the wrong account along with its GSTR-3B instead of filing a KFC-A return for payment of the KFC. The petitioner has been refunded the said cess by the respondent on direction issued by this Court. However, the fact remains that the State was denied KFC from 1st August 2019 to 04.08.2022. The present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to refund the interest portion to the petitioner after adjusting interest for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.07.2022.

The petitioner is a private scheduled bank registered under the Banking Regulation Act. Petitioner has been served with impugned show cause notice in demanding GST on some allegedly taxable services. The petitioner submits that the GST which has been demanded in the show cause notice for the services which are not taxable under the GST regime, and therefore, the demand raised in the show cause notice is wholly illegal and against the provisions of the CGST Act. Since the petitioner has approached this Court only against the show cause notice, this Court is not inclined to interfere this writ petition when the petitioner has opportunity to raise objections on all possible grounds against the demand of GST in the show cause notice before the authority concerned.