1. Challenging, inter alia, an order dated 25th January, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022, the present writ petition has been filed.

The petitioner challenged the order passed against his deceased wife, the proprietor of M/s. S.R. Steels, requesting that the impugned order be set aside and that he, as the legal heir, be allowed to present his case. The court set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the payment of 10% of the disputed tax, and directed the respondent to lift the bank account attachment.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, impugning an order whereby the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 03.07.2017. In the present case, the impugned SCN does not set out any specific reason which was capable of eliciting a meaningful response. In absence of any particulars as to the alleged fraud, willful misstatement, or facts allegedly suppressed, the petitioner cannot be expected to respond to the same.

The petitioner challenged the issuance of a penalty notice for delayed issuance under Section 129 of the Odisha GST Act, 2017, arguing it was issued beyond the stipulated seven days after seizure. The court rejected the argument, ruling that the notice was served on the seventh day, in compliance with the Act. The petitioner also claimed improper service on the driver rather than the owner, which the court also dismissed.

The petitioner challenged the dismissal of its appeal due to procedural errors and delay in filing. The court set aside the impugned order, ruling that the dismissal was based on minor procedural issues that could have been rectified if the petitioner had been given an opportunity. The court remanded the case to the appellate authority for de novo consideration and clarified that pre-deposits made via Form DRC-03 are valid for appeals filed before the relevant circular.

This Court has not gone into the merits of the writ petition and the petitioner shall be at liberty to urge whatever points he wishes to urge before the respondent on the issue.

The petitioner, a public limited company engaged in financing through loans secured by gold, sought a refund of unutilized credit on account of Service Tax, Education Cess, SHEC, and KKC. The court, relying on prior judgments, held that such Cess could not be transitioned under the CGST Act and dismissed the petition. The petitioner’s claim for refund was also rejected, being time-barred and outside the scope of Section 54 of the CGST Act.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of their GST registration, arguing that the order lacked proper reasoning and was issued mechanically without adherence to legal provisions. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The court found that the cancellation order lacked sufficient reasoning and set it aside, directing the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing.

The petitioner’s goods were detained due to the absence of a State E-way Bill, though the Central E-way Bill was available. The penalty order was passed, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. The court quashed the penalty order, citing previous judgments that during the relevant period, the requirement for a State E-way Bill was not enforceable.

The petitioner challenged the order demanding recovery of inadmissible ITC and penalty under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The court quashed the order, holding that the failure to provide the Verification Report, which was relied upon by the adjudicating authority, violated the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner-firm challenged the cancellation of its GST registration due to the non-filing of returns, attributed to the illness of the proprietor’s grandfather. The writ petition was allowed, directing the restoration of the firm’s GST registration, as the court found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The court exercised its powers under Article 226 to condone the delay and restore the appeal for adjudication on merits.

The petitioner applied for the cancellation of their GST registration with effect from 14.04.2024, but faced delays in processing due to additional requests for information from the tax authorities. The court directed the respondent to consider the cancellation application in accordance with the applicable laws and clarified that pending proceedings should not prevent the cancellation process.