The petitioner is aggrieved by the order whereby the respondent has rejected the refund claim of the Petitioner primarily on the ground that the refund claim is beyond the period of two years as prescribed under section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. This court set aside the impugned order and restored the refund claim of the Petitioner to file of the Assistant Commissioner, who will examine the case of the Petitioner on the basis of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition.

The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order passed under Section 61 and Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017. Both the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority have committed the said misreading of GSTR-9, hence both the impugned orders cannot stand and are set aside. The respondents are directed to adjust the amount of GST deposited by the petitioner.

The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the cancellation of its GST registration. The petitioner’s challenge to Sub-Section (2) of Section 29 of Act and Rule 21 & Rule 21A of the GST Rules is also founded on the respondent’s action suspending and cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. Since the said grievances are addressed, this court do not consider it apposite to consider the challenge to Sub-Section (2) of Section 29 of Act and Rule 21 & Rule 21A of the GST Rules

The non-submission of reply to the show cause cannot be a ground for cancellation of the registration

The Hon’ble High Court directed the petitioner to approach the authority by filing a detailed representation within one week. If any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondents shall reconsider and decide the same within one week by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity to be heard to the petitioner.

he Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, North – West Division, Bengaluru West Commissionerate, Bengaluru is also called upon to recredit a sum of Rs.52,44,57,242/- to the petitioner’s Electronic Credit Ledger as contemplated under Rule 86 (4B) of the CGST Rules,2017 subject to the decision on the petitioner’s application now restored for reconsideration.

Odisha High Court permits the Petitioner to resubmit the corrected GSTR-1 for certain periods and to enable the Petitioner to do so, a direction is issued to the Opposite Parties to receive it manually. Once the corrected Forms are received manually, the Department will facilitate the uploading of those details in the web portal.

The impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal afresh, without being influenced by the earlier order as well as by this order and decide the appeal after examining all the documents on record and giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

List this case on 15.03.2023 retaining its position.

Since it is apparent that the order dated 15.02.2022 cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the said order is liable to be set aside.

By this petition, the Petitioner is challenging the Order under the GST Act rejecting the Petitioner’s appeal as not maintainable. if the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the Petitioner ought to have filed an application before the authority for revocation, then the authority should have granted an opportunity to the Petitioner to file an application under section 30 which the authority failed to do. This court inclined to afford an opportunity to the Petitioner to file an application to the authority under section 30 of the CGST Act.

A show cause notice can be challenged only if the same is issued without Authority under Law or has been issued without jurisdiction or has predetermined the issue. In the instant case, none of the above-mentioned requirements have been satisfied. This Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing with the respondents.