Heard Sri Utkarsh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agrawal, learned Standing Counsel for the State

Petitioner impugns show cause notice dated 03.08.2023 requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the GST registration of the petitioner be not cancelled.

Petitioner impugns show cause notice dated 03.08.2023 requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the GST registration of the petitioner be not cancelled.

During the course of arguments it is transpired that admittedly there is no express/physical letter by the respondents on record showing cancellation of the registration of any of the dealers / suppliers in question retrospectively particularly for relevant assessment year 2018-19. Under such circumstances, nothing survives in the show cause notice to address upon on merits to the extent of discrepancy pointed out in the notice. Therefore, the impugned notices to that extent are hereby quashed.

The applicant has filed this First application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond.

Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to make payment of GST along with interest, on the value of work done for all contracts for which agreement were entered into with PWD/RED before 01.07.2017. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to move a fresh representation before the respondent.

These Writ Petitions have been filed, challenging the impugned orders along with summary of Order of even date in Form DRC-07, passed by the first respondent and quash the same as the same being arbitrary, illegal, in violation of principal natural justice and ultra vires the provisions of Section 88 of the CGST Act and SGST Act. In the present case, the issue of non-availability of the funds with the Official Liquidator for disbursement of the claims, is yet to be decided. Therefore, at present there is no cause of action arose to initiate against the Ex.Directors to recover the sales tax dues payable by the Company in liquidation. Therefore, the present action taken by the respondents in passing the impugned orders of demand which is in liquidation and serving on the petitioner, is not sustainable. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed.

These Writ Petitions have been filed, challenging the impugned orders passed by the respondents and quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires the provisions of Section 50 and 74 of the CGST Act/SGST Act. It is not the case of the petitioners that no opportunity was afforded during adjudication of the proceedings and passing the impugned orders. This Court does not find any violation of principles of natural justice and deprival of any constitutional rights. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petitions

The petitioner assails an order of cancellation of registration with effect from 31.12.2022. The question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner was provided a reasonable opportunity before the drastic order of cancellation of registration was issued. From the show cause notice, it appears that such notice was digitally signed by the Goods and Services Tax Network. When the said show cause notice is read with the impugned order, it is quite evident that the whole process has been undertaken mechanically. The order cancelling the petitioner`s GST registration is quashed.

Challenge has been raised to the order passed by respondent whereby the said authority has blocked ITC of value Rs. 53,61,832/- in exercise of his power under Rule 86A of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The only reason to block ITC is the satisfaction recorded by the respondent is that the said ITC was not genuine since the supplier/selling dealer - M/s Pushpendra Singh was found to be non-existent at his disclosed place of business, at District Hapur. since the order is wholly ex-parte, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction, subject to the petitioner filing an application before respondent to recall the order.

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an appellate order dated 08.02.2022 rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 7,34,732/-. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner was entitled to refund if the petitioner could avail of the exclusion in terms of notification No.13/2022-C.T. Under Section 54 of the CGST Act, an exporter of services is entitled to refund in respect of unutilised ITC. The relevant date is the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange, as per Explanation (2) to sub-section (14) of Section 54. Even as regards FIRCs issued in April 2018, if the benefit of the above notification is extended to the petitioner, the refund application dated 04.09.2020 would be within the two year period, which is to be computed from the relevant date, as per sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the CGST Act. Hence, the impugned order is quashed.

Heard Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.