Issues Involved :- This is a writ petiton under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of penalty under section 129(3) of CGST Act. There is no dispute to the fact that the goods were not in variance with the invoice and that the department was not able to indicate any kind of intention of the petitioner to evade tax apart from the technical error of non filling up of Part B of the E-Way Bill. Since the defect was of a technical nature only and without any intention to evade tax. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Act is not sustainable.

1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it remains undisputed that the petitioner`s registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 was cancelled on 13.4.2022 w.e.f. 28.2.2022. It is not the case of the revenue that the said registration has ever been revived or that the petitioner ever sought revival of that registration.

The petitioner assails an order rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner. On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the application was filed under the category “Any Others”. According to a refund claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground that such refund claim does not fall within the specific categories enumerated in Circular No.125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019. Therefore, the order impugned is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to reconsider the application in accordance with law.

By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned show-cause on the ground that the same is in violation of principle of natural justice and is nonspeaking and without considering the reply/details submission made by the petitioner on 26th December, 2023 against intimation to pre-show cause notice. This writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned show-cause notice to the writ petition and the matter is remanded back to the GST authority.

Payment of GST for grant of mining lease/royalty by the petitioner shall remain stayed until further orders.

Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant GST Concession Certificate to the petitioner so that petitioner can avail concessional rate of GST and seek refund of the GST paid on purchase of a vehicle. Petitioner is a person with disability and intended to purchase a four wheeler with specific concession of GST. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner. In case petitioner is found eligible in terms of the said policy, appropriate concession certificate be issued to the petitioner.

The cancellation of the registration has a very serious consequence and considering the fact that the petitioner has been able to demonstrate that he was seriously ill during the period and on the said account could not submit the reply to the show cause notice, on account of which, his registration was cancelled. The petition is disposed of directing the respondents to restore the GST Licence of the petitioner and if any other amount is due from the petitioner, he is directed to pay the same within a period of seven days from the date of said communication.

This Court considers it apposite to allow the present petition filed by the petitioner seeking refund of accumulated input tax credit and remand the matter to Respondent to consider the petitioner’s application afresh in the light of the circular dated 05.07.2022 and further directs that the respondent shall process the application for refund as expeditiously as possible.

Any registered person whose registration is cancelled, may apply for revocation of cancellation of the registration in the prescribed manner within 30(thirty) days, from the date of service of the cancellation order. In view of the presence of the alternate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, or pass any orders.

1. Petitioner impugns Order-in-Appeal dated 09.09.2021, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner impugning the Order-in-Original dated 21.08.2020 has been dismissed.

In the case at hand, apart from mentioning the name of the supplier in the electronic credit ledger, no reasons were provided. This writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to take necessary action to remove the block on the ITC in the electronic credit ledger pertaining to the assessee. It is, however, open to the respondents to initiate de novo action under Rule 86A by complying with the terms thereof.

1. Heard Mr. Rivankar the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, Ms. Pereira, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Arolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No. 3.