This court is of the view that the first respondent is entitled for refund as per the order passed by the second respondent and the first respondent is also entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum of the refund amount for the delay period in terms of Section 56 of the GST Act. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. While dismissing the writ petitions, the petitioner is directed to pass the refund order.

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the rejection of refund on the ground that the petitioner is a SEZ unit and they are not entitled to file any refund application, but only the supplier of service, is entitled to file the refund application. The case of the petitioner is that their unit comes under Special Economic Zone. They had availed the services from the supplier. While availing the services, the supplier levied IGST and the said IGST has been paid by the petitioner to the supplier. The refund filed by the petitioner is allowed.

In Favour of It is the case of the petitioner that in the challans, the vehicle number was wrongly mentioned. The vehicle no.RJ11GB6185 was intercepted as the wrong vehicle number was mentioned in the documentation. The petitioner applied for provisional release of the goods and vehicle in question, on furnishing a bond in Form GST INS-04 and security in form of bank guarantee as per Rule 140(1) of the UPGST Rules read with Section 67(6) of the UPGST Act, 2017. Since the submission made by counsel for the petitioner is not being disputed, the writ petition is allowed.

The present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent for release of the vehicle and the 1st respondent will take a decision for release of the vehicle on furnishing bond and sureties, in accordance with the law

CM APPL. 4034/2024 (U/s 151 CPC filed by petitioner to place on record copy of acknowledgement of withdrawal of appeal/application vide No. AD0710230160302 dated 12.12.2023)

In the instant case, the petitioner did not respond either to the intimation in Form GST ASTM- 10 or to the show cause notice in Form GST-DRC-01. In addition, the petitioner did not attend the personal hearing. The explanation of the petitioner is that the consultant did not keep the petitioner informed. The consultant, in turn, states that the notices were not available on the tab relating to regular returns and were instead accessible only through the tab relating to additional notices. Solely for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order calls for interference. The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration.

A registered person carrying on a small business did not have the opportunity to respond to the claim made by the tax department with regard to the discrepancy between the returns in Form GSTR-2B and Form GSTR-3B. The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The petitioner will not have an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice and the opportunity would be limited to participation in the proceedings before the assessing officer and making any submissions within a maximum period of two weeks. The assessing officer is directed to complete the re-assessment within a maximum period of two months by issuing a reasoned decision. Writ Petitions are disposed of. No Costs.

- This Court is not in a position to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Central Government to include Sections 129 and 130 of the Act in the Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax. The Government can very well consider adding these two Sections in the said notification, so that the benefit that has been provided for the orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act can be extended to Sections 129 and 130 of the Act. The matter is adjourned sine die with liberty granted to the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to mention the same at the appropriate time

- Petition is disposed of permitting petitioner to file a detailed response to the show-cause notice and provide all requisite details and information, as sought for by the department and shall dispose of show cause notice by a speaking order. An opportunity of personal hearing be given to the petitioner before disposal of the show cause notice. It is clarified that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by any further order, it would be entitled to avail such remedies as may be permissible in law. Accordingly, Petition is disposed of.

A taxpayer’s registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted. The SCN so issued does not put the petitioner to notice that the registration was liable to be cancelled retrospectively and the petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the order of cancellation is modified to the extent that the same shall operate with effect from the date on which the petitioner discontinued the business.. It is clarified that respondents are not precluded from taking any steps for recovery of any tax, penalty or interest that may be due from the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

Petitioner seeks quashing of show cause notice and further seeks restoration and revival of GST registration of the petitioner. The petition is disposed of with the direction that respondent shall furnish to the petitioner the entire material available with the respondents in support of the show cause notice on or before 08.02.2024.

Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice within one week and on such reply being filed, respondent shall dispose of the show cause notice by a speaking order. An opportunity of personal hearing be given to the petitioner before disposal of the show cause notice.