Petitioner submitted that the notification No.56 of 2023 dated 28th December, 2023, has been issued only under the Central GST Act, 2017, that too, without prior approval of the GST council. In any case, no parallel notification has been issued under the UP GST Act, 2017. Matter requires consideration.

The petitioner could not justify the reasons for non-production of the invoice and the e-way bill leading to a presumption that there was an intention to evade tax. Further, the petitioner was not able to bring any evidence to rebut the said presumption of evasion of tax. Therefore, this court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

1. Heard Sri Mohit Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Amit Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

The writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the petitioners request in the representation made on 28.01.2019 to grant exemption from the provisions of Section 51 of the SGST/CGST Acts to levy of TDS at 2% be taken up with the GST Council for wholesale kerosene suppliers, who purchase PDS kerosene from oil companies and supply the same to fair price shops run by the State Government after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

The petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that it travels beyond the scope of revision proceedings under Section 108 of the TNGST Act and that no findings were recorded with regard to this objection in the impugned order. The petitioner also contended that interest was not leviable under Section 50(3) and that penalty should not be levied in the facts and circumstances. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter issue a speaking order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

The petitioner is directed to file her returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, together with tax dues along with interest thereon and the fee fixed for belated filing of returns within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on payment of tax, penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived forthwith. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

This court do not find any justification for the resumption of the cash which was converted into fixed deposit with Auto Renewal Option and its continued retention by the respondents in the search carried out by the Officers of the respondents on 04.10.2021. Petitions are therefore allowed with directions to the respondents to forthwith remit the proceeds of the fixed deposit (along with interest) to the bank account of the entities/person from whose possession the same was resumed during search conducted.

Would we be eligible for credit on Capital Goods in transit and received post GST?

Form H will not be there in GST

The challenge in this Petition is to the demand notice and the order demanding and confirming the demand of GST from the Petitioner. This court decline to entertain this Petition, leaving it open to the Petitioner to avail of the alternate remedies under the CGST Act. Even the issue now urged by Mr Bhobe, namely that the GST was not payable at all or, in any case, the GST was payable by the end user, can always be gone into by the appellate authority.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner approached the jurisdictional officer to allow the petitioner to alter/amend the invoice details pertaining to F.Y. 2017-18 in GSTR-1 for the month of December, 2019. This court allow the petition by permitting the petitioner to rectify the GSTR-1 for the period 2017-18. Ordered accordingly.

The petitioner assails an assessment order by which the ITC availed of by the petitioner was reversed on the ground that the GST registration of the relevant supplier was cancelled with retrospective effect. The contentions of the petitioner were rejected entirely on the ground that the petitioner should have proved the existence of M/s.Shikhar Technologies. The impugned assessment order is unsustainable in the facts and circumstances. Hence, the impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration.