The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. The impugned SCN as well as the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration are set aside. The petitioner’s GST registration is directed to be restored forthwith.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, impugning an order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. The petitioner was issued the SCN proposing to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration for the reason that it was not found functioning/ existing at its principal place of business. This court consider it apposite to dispose of the present petition by permitting the petitioner to file an application for revocation of cancellation of its GST registration, and also substantiate that it is carrying on its business from another premises.

Petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ certiorari for quashing/set aside the SCN and the consequential order whereby Petitioner’s application seeking revocation of GST cancellation and in furtherance thereof restoring the same was rejected on the ground that principal place of business was not found/available at the time of the field visit. The petitioner asserts that if a proper investigation is carried out, the same would be confirmed. This court is of the view that it would be just and proper to consider the petitioner’s application, afresh and to give him the liberty to file additional material and documents before the concerned officer to establish its functioning from the principal place of business, within a period of two weeks from today.

This Court is of the view that the impugned orders are wholly untenable not only on the ground of total violation of principles of natural justice but also on other grounds, including failure to pass a speaking order as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order of assessment with condition to remand the matter back to the second respondent for re-adjudication. List the matter on 14.12.2023 for reporting compliance.

In the present case, the petitioner is well aware of the fact that the impugned order is going to be passed. However, instead of filing the appeal, he had not taken any steps to challenge the said impugned order till date. Now, he had filed this writ petition only because of the attachment order passed by the first respondent. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a Statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority.

Issues Involved :- The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order of seizure as well as the order of confiscation. There cannot be authorisation in respect of each and every person and each and every article, goods, books, and documents which may be discovered during the search operation. The authorisation has to be done in respect of the business premises of an assessee, and if things, items, books or documents are found that the authorised officer has reasons to believe that they would be relevant for the purpose of proceeding under the SGST/CGST Act 2017, they are liable to be seized. This court does not find any substance in the submission of the petitioner that there was no authorisation under Section 67(2) of the SGST/CGST Act 2017 for the seizure of the gold ornaments.

The petitioner assails an order passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, whereby the petitioner’s application for revocation of cancellation of registration under section 30(1) of West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. There has been no violation of the principles of natural justice in the proceedings conducted by the authorities. On the contrary, the petitioner had been granted adequate opportunity by the respondent authorities.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01 issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. This court is of the opinion that show cause notice would not be sustainable as they are bereft of facts and materials and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 12.09.2020, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner had been cancelled with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017.

Since in the present cases, both tax and penalty are imposed against the petitioners and admittedly, an adverse decision is contemplated against the petitioners, therefore, under Section 75(4) of the Act of 2017, an opportunity of hearing was mandatorily required to be given by the department to the petitioners and merely marking the same as "NO" in the option cannot entitle the department to pass an order without giving any opportunity or even without waiting for the petitioners to appear on the date fixed. In view thereof, all the writ petitions are allowed on the sole ground of opportunity of hearing and the orders impugned in all four writ petitions are quashed.

The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

1. Heard Mr Nadkarni who appears with Ms Khadilkar for the Petitioner. Ms Priyanka Kamat, Standing Counsel, appears for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Ms Asha Desai, Senior Standing Counsel, appears for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.