The petitioner assails an order dated 16.08.2023 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner. The petitioner was a registered person under applicable GST laws. According to the petitioner, he was unaware of the issuance of a show cause notice dated 15.06.2023 calling upon him to appear before the Commercial Tax Officer on 22.06.2023 in relation to the proposed cancellation of his GST registration. Since he was unaware of the show cause notice, it is stated that the petitioner did not reply thereto. Meanwhile, an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A was issued to the petitioner on 12.07.2023 in relation to the assessment period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner replied thereto on 27.07.2023. In these circumstances, it is stated that the petitioner was shocked to receive the impugned order of cancellation of his registration.

The petitioner assails an assessment order dated 09.10.2023. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing technology enabled staffing and outsourcing services. As a registered person under applicable GST laws, the petitioner had filed its returns. In relation thereto, the petitioner first received a notice in Form GST ASMT-10. In response, the petitioner requested for an adjournment. Thereafter, an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A dated 11.07.2023 was received by the petitioner in respect of four issues. This was followed by the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 18.08.2023. Once again, by citing the revamping of its tax team, the petitioner requested for an adjournment. However, the order impugned herein came to be issued. The present writ petition was filed in the said facts and circumstances.

1. Petitioner impugns the order dated 15.01.2024 whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled with effect from 03.12.2021.

Advisory: Enhanced E-Invoicing Initiatives & Launch of Enhanced https://einvoice.gst.gov.in portal

The Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, considering the gravity of the offence, that petitioner has taken a fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth of Rs. 20,28,40,841/-, and therefore this court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the bail application of accused-petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

The order impugned herein calls for interference on the basis that the petitioner did not produce payment details although the petitioner had submitted a trade payables ageing report indicating that none of the payments to the petitioner`s vendors were made beyond 180 days and that the petitioner expressly requested for a personal hearing and Such personal hearing was not granted. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The assessing officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, take into account documents produced by the petitioner and, thereafter, issue a fresh assessment order.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in appeal and the order imposing penalty under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act. When the the error in the documents is only that of a clerical or typographical error, the initial burden of proof lies on the department to show there was intention to evade tax. In the present case the department has failed to do so and infact has not even tried to do so. The department has accordingly failed to shift the burden of proof on the petitioner as the only error found by the department was that the vehicle number was incorrect. Impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

The petitioner submits that the credit was reversed entirely on the basis that the refund orders were not uploaded in the portal. Further, should be provided an opportunity to place the relevant documents before the assessing officer. The interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to place these documents for the consideration of the assessing officer. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration and the petitioner shall submit all relevant documents and upon receipt thereof, the assessing officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter pass order afresh.

The petitioner has not been able to rebut the presumption of evasion of taxes, as he has not been able to explain the absence of invoice and the E-Way Bill. Production of these documents subsequent to the interception cannot absolve the petitioner from the liability of penalty as the very purpose of imposing penalty is to act as a deterrent to persons who intend to avoid paying taxes owed to the Government. In view of this court, no interference is required with regard to the impugned orders and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed

Considering the fact that the petitioner had joined the investigation consequent to the orders passed by this Court, interim bail granted is hereby confirmed, subject to conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Further the petitioner will not tamper with the evidence nor will influence the witnesses and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.

It appears that the claim was rejected entirely on the ground that the GSTR-3B returns did not reflect the ITC claim. Therefore, interference is warranted with the orders impugned. Hence, the orders impugned herein are quashed and these matters are remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to place all documents pertaining to its ITC claims before the assessing officer and upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue fresh assessment orders

The entire demand under the assessment order was satisfied by way of the remittance made by the bank to the tax department and therefore, revenue interest is fully protected at this juncture. If the Contention of the petitioner is found to be correct, the reversal of ITC to that extent may warrant revision. Therefore, the impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration and the petitioner is permitted to submit a reply. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order.