Seeks to notify “Public Tech Platform for Frictionless Credit” as the system with which information may be shared by the common portal based on consent under sub-section (2) of Section 158A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Petitioner impugns order passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act provisionally attaching the cash credit accounts of the petitioners. The petition is disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to impugn the fresh attachment order dated 13.12.2023 in accordance with law. The question of validity of repeated issuance of attachment orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act is left open

Petitioner impugns order passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The petition is disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to impugn the fresh attachment order dated 13.12.2023 in accordance with law. The question of validity of repeated issuance of attachment orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act is left open.

The writ petition is disposed of and the order is set aside. The petitioner may treat the said order to be the final notice issued to him and file its reply together with all supporting documents and thereupon the respondent may fix a short date for hearing with at least one week notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned order after hearing the petitioner.

There is no reasoning in the said show cause notice and in the impugned order as to why the cancellation has been done retrospectively. Hence, the petition is disposed of and the impugned show cause notice and order of cancellation are accordingly set aside with a direction to restore the GST registration of the petitioner subject to complying with Rule 23 of Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017.

Petitioner impugns Notification No. 9 of 2023 whereby the limitation period for exercise of power under Section 73 of the CGST Act. Petitioner also impugns order whereby the proceedings under Section 73 of the Act have been concluded and a demand has been created against the petitioner. The proper officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the explanation was sufficient or not. He merely held that no proper reply/explanation has been received which ex-facie shows that proper officer has not even looked at the reply submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside

The finding of the authorities with regard to intention to evade tax is not supported by the factual matrix of the case, and accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the instant writ petition is allowed with the directions to the respondents to refund the amount of tax and penalty deposited by the petitioner.

Petitioner impugns Notification No. 9 of 2023 whereby the limitation period for exercise of power under Section 73 of the CGST Act has been extended. Petitioner also impugns order whereby the proceedings under Section 73 of the Act have been concluded and a demand has been created against the petitioner. The proper officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the explanation was sufficient or not. He merely held that no proper reply/explanation has been received which ex-facie shows that proper officer has not even looked at the reply submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside.

Ex-facie it is apparent that the proper officer has not taken into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner while passing the cryptic order. Consequently, this court is of the view that the order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The proper officer shall pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of a personal hearing to the petitioner.

The petitioner assails an assessment order in respect of the assessment period 2017-18. Thus, the impugned assessment order suffers from non application of mind resulting in patent errors. For such reason, the impugned assessment order warrants interference. For reasons set out above, the impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration.

The impugned order is not proper to the extent that it was not passed by proper officer as per the Circular No.31/05/2018 as the monetary limit of the input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized of central tax is Rs. Ten Lakhs and State Tax Rs. Ten Lakhs, totaling to Rs. Twenty Lakhs for issuance of show cause notices and passing of orders under Sections 73 and 74 of CGST Act. The writ petition is allowed.

An assessment order dated 29.12.2023 is assailed as regards the findings relating to Discrepancy Nos.1, 2, 10 and 11. The petitioner states that it carries on business in textiles and also as an authorized dealer of Hyundai Motor Vehicles. Pursuant to an audit, show cause notice dated 25.09.2023 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner replied thereto on 25.09.2023. The impugned order dated 29.12.2023 came to be issued thereafter.