Writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the impugned assessment order on the file of respondent vide GSTIN:33CGMPR4007C1Z0/2022-2023 dated 09.08.202 and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 bearing Ref. No.ZD33122382708B passed for the assessment year for the tax period between July 2017 to March 2018 being the first year after the implementation of the demand.

An order is assailed on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. The petitioner asserts that he was unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned order because the intimation and show cause notice were uploaded on the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal and not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the tax proposal was confirmed only because the petitioner failed to reply to the show cause notice by enclosing relevant documents. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration

Challenge has been raised to the adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017 read with Rule 142(5) of the Rules framed thereunder. Primarily, challenge raised is to the ex parte nature of the order. It has been urged, no proper notice to file reply and in any case, no prior notice of hearing was served to the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed. The petitioner may treat the impugned order to be a final show-cause notice and furnish its detailed reply.

3. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for the following reliefs:

The applicant, an SEZ unit, is not required to pay GST under RCM on specified services in accordance with notification No. 10/2017-IT(Rate) dated 28.6.2017 as amended from time to time, subject to furnishing a LUT or bond as specified in condition (i) of para 1 of notification No. 37/2017-CT.

The activity of insulating of bare M.S. Pipes provided by the registered customers on job work basis by using PU Foam and PE Film/HDPE jackets owned by the applicant would be classifiable under clause (id) of Sr. No. 26 of notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.6.2017. Further, it would be classifiable under clause (iv) of Sr. No. 26 of notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 in respect of similar service provided on goods belonging to unregistered persons.

Section 73/74 of the CGST Act, 2017--- Order ----- The petitioner challenged the order dated 15.12.2023. The court observed that the respondent has not considered all these issues in the order impugned, it is just and necessary that the 1st respondent reconsiders the matter after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

The petitioner was issued a show cause notice (SCN) for cancellation of registration on 02/02/2023 for non-filing of returns for the last 6 months. On receipt of SCN the petitioner filed the returns for august & september for the assessment period 2022-23. The order of cancellation was issued thereafter on 15/03/2023. By the time of cancellation, on account of the filing of the returns for two months, it could not have been concluded that the petitioner had not filed returns for a continuous period of six months. In those circumstances, the impugned order of cancellation cannot be sustained, and the registration of the petitioner shall stand restored.

The issue relates to tax liability on the difference in GSTR 3B & GSTR 1 and reversal of ITC on the purchase of paint for building. Petitioner paid the GST amount on the difference in GSTR 3B & GSTR 1 even before the issuance of the intimation by the department. Further reversal of ITC is not valid as there is no basis for concluding the purchase of paint.Since the petitioner`s reply and the documents annexed thereto were not taken into consideration, the impugned order is unsustainable as regards these issues. The impugned order is set aside & matter is remanded for reconsideration.

2. Challenge to order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ward-II, Circle-D, Zone-II, Jaipur, Commercial Tax Department is premised mainly on the ground that the notices issued to the petitioner did not comply with the mandate of law. Challenge to the impugned order is also on the ground of violation of statutory scheme incorporating principles of natural justice.

1. Heard Shri Shrey Ashat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.