Heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

1. Petitioner impugns order of cancellation of registration dated 10.06.2022 whereby the GST registration of the Petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017. Petitioner also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 18.11.2021.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 27.12.2023, whereby the show cause notice dated 25.09.2023, proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed and a demand of Rs. 22,10,220.00 including penalty has been raised against the petitioner. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

An assessment order is the subject of challenge. The impugned assessment order was issued without hearing the petitioner and, consequently, without considering the petitioner`s explanation and any documents in support thereof. Therefore, the impugned assessment order is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.

Petitioner impugns order whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed and a demand of Rs. 51,64,782.00 including penalty has been raised against the petitioner. If the Proper Officer was of the view that reply was not satisfactory and further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the petitioner, however, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. n view of the above, the order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.

Petitioner impugns order whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed of and a demand of Rs. 8,22,82,330.00 including penalty has been raised against the petitioner. If the Proper Officer was of the view that further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. In view of the above, the order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

A typographical error in the e-way bill without any further material to substantiate the intention to evade tax should not and cannot lead to imposition of penalty. In the present case, instead of ‘0401’, ‘2224’ was incorrectly entered into the e-way bill which clearly appears to be a typographical error. This court is of the view that imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the Act is without jurisdiction and illegal in law

Petitioner impugns order whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed and a demand of Rs. 3,09,18,988.00 including penalty has been raised against the petitioner. If the Proper Officer was of the view that reply was not satisfactory and further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. In view of the above, the order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 13.02.2021, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 15.07.2017. Petitioner also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 03.02.2021.

1. Heard Sri Anand Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and Sri Dipak Seth, Advocate, who has filed his Power today on behalf of respondent No.3, which is taken on record. His name shall be shown in the cause list as appearing for respondent no.3 when the case is next listed.

Subject: Instances of Delay in registration reported by some Taxpayers despite successful Aadhar Authentication in accordance with Rule 8 and 9 CGST, Rules, 2017-reg