Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to grant benefit of Input Tax Credit that was paid by the Petitioner on the same invoices for the period 2019-2020, on which, Respondent No. 3 has also paid the tax. Accordingly, double payment has been made to the department. This petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an appropriate application as mandated by Section 54 of the Act claiming refund. The claim of the Petitioner that Petitioner is covered by Notification No. 13/22 shall be considered by the Proper Officer in accordance with law while entertaining the application for refund filed by the Petitioner.

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order whereby the tax is determined under Section 73(9) of the CGST/SGST Act. The petitioner is entitled for an opportunity of hearing before determination of any tax even under Section 73(9) of the CGST/SGST Act. Thus, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appropriate authority to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

An order is challenged primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity. The entire amount due and payable under the impugned order was appropriated from the petitioner`s bank account. Therefore, at this juncture, revenue interest is fully secured. In these circumstances, it is just and necessary to provide the petitioner an opportunity. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondent for reconsideration.

The orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside for being non-reasoned and the petitioner is allowed to file reply to the show cause notice and the adjudicating authority is directed to proceed de novo and pass order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

The record does not reflect that any opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details as required by the proper officer and therefore, the order cannot be sustained; the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication after giving an opportunity of personal hearing who shall pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law.

Petitioner impugns order whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice proposing a demand against the Petitioner has been disposed of and a demand including penalty has been raised against the Petitioner. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the reply was incomplete. He merely held that the reply is incomplete and lacks supporting documents which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner. In view of the above, the order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.

Petitioner impugns order whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 15.11.2018. 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 fact that the Petitioner does not seek to carry on business or continue the registration, the impugned order dated 25.08.2023 is modified to the limited extent that registration shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from 08.11.2022 i.e., the date when the Show Cause Notice was issued.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order by which the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. From the perusal of the order it transpires that no reason has been assigned for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner. In view of the above, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, is hereby quashed

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in appeal wherein the penalty imposed on the petitioner under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act has been affirmed. unloading of goods at a different place by itself would not lead to imposition of penalty. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed

J.J. Distributors, Rep. By Its Managing Partner, Vinod Nahar Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chenn

The petitioner is a registered person under applicable GST enactments and operates on Pan-India basis. Pursuant to an audit and the issuance of an audit report dated 24.09.2023, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.09.2023. The petitioner replied thereto on 27.10.2023. The order impugned herein was issued thereafter on 31.12.2023.

1. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.