The court dismissed the appeal and set aside the orders, directing authorities to first proceed against the supplier, adhering to exceptional circumstances clarified by CBIC press release before initiating proceedings against the appellant for the non payment of tax liability by the supplier to the exchequer.

On perusal of the impugned order in original passed in Form GST DRC-07, it emerges that the petitioner has been given adequate opportunity of hearing as stated in Para.5.1 to 5.9 of the impugned order and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the opportunity of hearing not given is not tenable and the petitioner is, therefore, required to be relegated to avail the alternative efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, to challenge the impugned order before the appellate authority.

The writ petition is allowed; Annexure-P/1 order set aside. Matter remanded to First Appellate Authority for consideration on merits per Annexure-P/6 and P/8, directing a speaking order.

Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017— Refund —-The petitioner sought direction to resolve the technical glitch on the portal so that the three refund applications may be decided by respondent or in the alternative the respondent no. 4 be directed to process the three refund applications manually in terms of Rule 97A. It has been submitted that all the pending refund applications were disposed off by sanctioning the refunds vide RFD-06.The court observed that such a dispute should never have arisen before this Court and the respondent-authorities ought to have addressed the grievance efficiently. In view of further fact that at present the refund has been paid out, the cause of action brought by the petitioner does not survive.

It appears to be a common mistake being caused by revenue authorities where provisional attachment orders may never continue for more than one year are allowed to exist beyond that end date. Such error on the part of the revenue authorities leaves the assessee with no option but to approach this Court for effective direction on the revenue authorities to actually lift the provisional attachment. The provisional attachment orders are actually lifted only upon the revenue authorities being questioned about the illegality of their action, by this Court. Such a course is wholly undesirable. Once the statutory law admits of no doubt and the revenue authorities do offer correction to the error committed by them upon being pointed out by this Court, we find such litigation whenever it arises to be wholly avoidable.

Petitioner challenges the order in original for cancellation of registration dated May 13, 2020 passed by the respondent No. 3/Assistant Commissioner and the order dated April 3, 2024 passed by the respondent No. 2/Additional Commissioner in appeal under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The order in original dated May 13, 2020 and the appellate order dated April 3, 2024 are quashed and set aside

1. The rejection of the petitioner’s claim for budgetary support for the period July-September, 2017 even while its claim for October, 2017 to June, 2018 was allowed under the “Scheme of budgetary support under Goods and Services Tax Regime” to the units located in States of Jammu & Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and North East including Sikkim dated 05.10.2017 (the Budgetary Support Scheme) has led to the present litigation.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates of either side, the appeal and the writ petition are taken up for disposal and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

1. Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the revenue.

1. Heard Sri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioner impugns Show Cause Notice dated 17.07.2023 and order dated 02.08.2022, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 09.10.2019. Since the impugned Show Cause Notice is itself defective and the impugned order is cryptic without any reason, the same cannot be sustained. Normally in such circumstances, this Court would have quashed the Show Cause Notice, however, since the petitioner has himself stated that petitioner has shut down his business in the month of September, 2023 and wanted cancellation of the registration, the order is modified to the limited extent that the cancellation shall be effective from the date of the order i.e. 02.08.2023 and not retrospectively.