Petitioner impugns order whereby the appeal of the Petitioner seeking restoration of the GST registration has been dismissed solely on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. The registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria. Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer’s registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed, and the taxpayer was compliant. In view of the aforesaid, order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The GST registration of the petitioner is restored.

A perusal of show cause notice shows that the same has been issued on the ground that registration has been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppressing of facts. The notice is unclear as to which of the ground applies i.e. fraud, willful misstatement or suppressing of facts. The notice neither bears the name and designation nor the signatures of the issuing authority. Form GST REG 31 admittedly has not been uploaded on the portal or sent electronically over e-mail to the petitioner but is stated to have been sent to the petitioner by physical mail, which cannot be a mode of service, as prescribed under Rule 21A. In view of the above impugned show cause notice as well as Form GST REG 31 is set aside.

This court find that the representation of the petitioner in terms of Writ Court`s order dated 4.8.2023 stand decided by the competent authority by passing the order dated 21.9.2023 and, therefore, on the face of it, no contempt is made out as the remedy before the petitioner is to challenge the said order in accordance with law.

The petitioner assails both an assessment order and a consequential bank attachment notice. The petitioner is engaged in the business of supply of bricks, blocks, tiles and ceramic goods. The petitioner asserts that he is uneducated and computer illiterate. Therefore, it is further asserted that the petitioner was unaware of proceedings commencing from the issuance of an intimation and culminating in the impugned assessment order. On perusal of the impugned assessment order, it is evident that the petitioner availed of a lower amount as ITC than the amount reflected in the auto-populated GSTR 2A return. Therefore, the impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the assessing officer for reconsideration.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 23.12.2023, whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2023, proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed of and a demand of Rs. 1,36,98,144.00 including penalty has been raised against the petitioner. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 29.11.2023, whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2023, proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed and a demand of Rs. 1,52,60,614.00 including penalty has been raised against the petitioner. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The petitioner challenges an assessment order dated 23.08.2023 primarily on the ground that documents produced by the petitioner were disregarded.

Petitioner seeks a declaration that the reversal of the input tax credit by the respondents is illegal and petitioner seeks refund of input tax credit. This court is of the view that the petitioner having unconditionally withdrawn the earlier petition and liberty being specifically declined to the petitioner, the petitioner is precluded from filing the present petition seeking the same relief which was earlier withdrawn by the petitioner. In the instant case, the investigation has found petitioner culpable and accordingly, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner which is pending adjudication.

Petitioner seeks a declaration that the reversal of the input tax credit by the respondents is illegal and petitioner seeks refund of input tax credit. This court is of the view that the petitioner having unconditionally withdrawn the earlier petition and liberty being specifically declined to the petitioner, the petitioner is precluded from filing the present petition seeking the same relief which was earlier withdrawn by the petitioner. In the instant case, the investigation has found petitioner culpable and accordingly, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner which is pending adjudication.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent-State Tax Officer, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled. The writ petition stands disposed-off with a liberty to the petitioner for moving an application for revocation of cancellation order under Section 30 of the Act of 2017.

MADRAS HIGH COURT W.P. NOS. 7087, 7090, 7093, 7097 & 7102 OF 2024 AND W.M.P.NOS.7921, 7922, 7926, 7930, 7933, 7934, 7939, 7940, 7946 & 7948 OF 2024 Angalamman Auto Spares, Represented By Its Proprietor, Thiru M.M. Vellingiri .....Appellant V/s The State Tax Officer, (Also Known as The Commercial Tax Officer) Gobichettipalayam .....Respondent Hon`ble Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J. Date : 18/03/2024 Appearance: Mr. K.A. Parthasarathy, Mr. N. Chandirasekar for Mr. N. Prasad for the Petitioner. Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, Govt. Adv. (T) for the Respondent.K.A. Parthasarathy, N. Chandirasekar, N. Prasad, V. Prashanth Kiran Case Disposed of Issues Involved :- Assessment orders in respect of five distinct assessment periods are challenged primarily on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. The petitioner is involved inter alia in trading of automobile parts. As a small trader, the petitioner had entrusted the task of filing returns and handling GST compliance to an accountant. The petitioner asserts that he became aware of the impugned assessment orders only in the second week of February 2024. The impugned assessment orders are quashed and all these matters are remanded for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of each assessment period within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. JUDGMENT Assessment orders in respect of five distinct assessment periods are challenged primarily on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioner is involved inter alia in trading of automobile parts. As a small trader, the petitioner had entrusted the task of filing returns and handling GST compliance to an accountant. The petitioner asserts that he became aware of the impugned assessment orders only in the second week of February 2024. The present writ petitions were filed thereafter. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the common issue in respect of all five assessment orders is the mismatch between the GSTR 3B returns filed by the petitioner and the auto-populated GSTR 2A returns. After submitting that the petitioner was unaware of the notices preceding the assessment orders, learned counsel submits that Circular No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 (Circular No.183) was issued to prescribe the procedure for dealing with cases relating to mismatch between the above mentioned returns. Learned counsel contends that such Circular envisages the conduct of an enquiry by the assessing officer and that the tax payer is entitled to submit a certificate either from the supplier or from the Chartered Accountant depending on the quantum of discrepancy. Learned counsel further submits that even a detailed show cause notice was not issued in these matters and that only a summary was provided to the petitioner. 4. Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. He submits that the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity, as is evident from the notice in Form ASMT-10 and the intimation preceding the show cause notices. He also submits that the statute imposes the burden on the tax payer to establish entitlement to Input Tax Credit (ITC) and that the petitioner completely failed to discharge such obligation. 5. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of each assessment period as a condition for remand. 6. The documents on record disclose that the liability pertains to alleged mismatch between the GSTR 3B returns of the petitioner and the auto-populated GSTR 2A returns. In recognition of difficulties faced in this regard, Circular No.183 was issued. The petitioner has also placed on record a certificate from the Chartered Accountant with regard to the reason for disparity between the above mentioned returns. Although the petitioner did not respond to the notices and participate in the assessment proceedings, the above facts and circumstances justify interference with the impugned orders, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms. 7. For reasons set out above, the impugned assessment orders are quashed and all these matters are remanded for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of each assessment period within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within the aforesaid period. Upon receipt thereof and upon being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand under each assessment period was received, the assessing officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue fresh assessment orders within a period of two months. 8. These writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

The petitioner states that he had purchased a car in the assessment year 2021-2022. Since he had wrongly availed of Input Tax Credit in relation thereto, it is stated that such ITC was reversed in the GSTR 3B return filed subsequently. On examining the impugned order, it is evident that such impugned order proceeds on the basis that ITC of Rs. 73,690/- each towards CGST and SGST was wrongly availed of. In other words, the said order proceeds on the basis that ITC was not reversed. In light of documents placed on record by the petitioner, the said order requires reconsideration. The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration.