Mere production of the invoices and/or payment by cheque is not sufficient and cannot be said to be proving the burden as per section 70 of the Act, 2003. Both, the second Appellate Authority as well as the High Court have materially erred in allowing the ITC despite the concerned purchasing dealers' failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and failed to discharge the burden of proof as per section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court and the second Appellate Authority allowing the ITC is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The orders passed by the Assessing Officer denying the ITC to the concerned purchasing dealers, confirmed by the first Appellate Authority are hereby restored

As the appellant had sought for availing the alternate remedy and has, in fact, availed it, we are not inclined to admit this writ appeal and hear the contentions of the appellant on merits. Learned Counsel for the appellant raises an apprehension that since the writ petition was dismissed, he would be prejudiced in the appeal before the statutory authority as it will be taken that his contentions were rejected by this Court.

No interest or late payment charges can be levied for the period technical glitches had prevented the petitioner from filing its returns. However, any delay on the part of the petitioner to file the returns after the technical glitches were resolved, would invite payment of interest and also late payment charges. The petitioner would be afforded the opportunity of hearing on the question of whether any interest or late payment charges are payable by it. In the event, that the respondents consider that there is any delay on the part of the petitioner after the technical glitches have been resolved, it would be open for the respondents to issue a show cause notice for the recovery of any amount of interest, or other charges payable by the petitioner, in accordance with law.

The second respondent – the Superintendent of Central Tax - is permitted to pass suitable orders for revocation of the cancellation of registration, if the petitioner files Returns for the relevant period for which returns have to be file

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order whereby the petitioner’s application for cancellation of its GST registration, was rejected. The reason for seeking cancellation of the registration was disclosed as “Discontinuance of business/Closure of business”. Indisputably, the petitioner has a right to seek cancellation of the registration on the aforesaid ground. The respondents are directed to cancel the petitioner’s registration with effect from 31.07.2021, as requested by the petitioner.

It is directed that the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration will take effect from 11.01.2020. It is further clarified that this order will not preclude the respondents from initiating any proceedings for recovery of any tax, interest or penalty as may be otherwise due from the petitioner, in accordance with law.

This Court in these circumstances must opine that there is a complete lack of application of mind in canceling the petitioner’s registration and the petitioner has made out grounds that would justify interference. Hence, the petition is allowed, and the order dated 20.04.2022 [Annexure-A] is quashed on the condition that the petitioner files returns within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Failing which, the cancellation order shall stand revived.

By filling the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenge is addressed by the petitioner to two orders. The first is order is an order passed under section 129(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The other challenge is addressed against order passed under section 130 of the Act. The petitioner has to face the adjudicatory proceedings under section 130 of the Act.

The petition is allowed, and the order dated 27.09.2021 [Annexure-A] is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner files returns within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Failing which, the cancellation order shall stand revive

The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner’s registration as expeditiously as possible. It is clarified that the restoration of the petitioner’s registration would not preclude the respondents from initiating appropriate proceedings for recovery of any tax, interest or penalty, if otherwise due from the petitioner, in accordance with law.

By filling this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to set aside notice which was for confiscation of goods or conveyance and levy of penalty under section 130 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The proceedings are remanded to the competent authority of the respondents, which shall decide the subject matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case.

The matter is remanded back to the respondent to consider the grievance expressed by the petitioner against cancellation of GST registration and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.