Whether the authority, who passed the final adjudication order had not issued show cause notice but acted on show-cause notice issued by some other authority, could have been validly exercised the power under the law. Stay order granted. Petition will be disposed of on the next date of hearing.

The petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner pays as per Section 112(8) of the GST Act, recovery proceedings are stayed, and the petitioner may appeal within three months of the Tribunal`s constitution

Petitioner impugns order whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed of and a demand including penalty has been created against the petitioner. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner has made out a case that Petitioner was under the impression that the proceedings under Section 73 of the Act had been closed, since the proceedings under Section 61 of the Act had culminated because of which petitioner did not file a reply. Since the only reason for passing the impugned order is that petitioner had not filed any reply/explanation, one opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notice. The matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 is set aside.

Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer’s registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant. The Petitioner does not seek to carry on business or continue the registration, the impugned order dated 18.08.2022 is modified to the limited extent that registration shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from 23.04.2021 i.e., the date when petitioner filed an application seeking cancellation of GST registration. Petitioner shall make the necessary compliances as required by Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The appellant is not eligible to avail ITC on supply of air conditioning and cooling system and ventilation system since it ceases to be a plant and machinery and is blocked under section 17 (5) (c) of CGST Act, 2017 as the same is works contract services for construction of an immovable property.

Petitioner impugns order whereby the Show Cause Notice proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed of and a demand including penalty has been created against the petitioner. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside. The Show Cause Notice is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.

ZLD treated water (RO) obtained from ZLD plant (classifiable under Chapter 2201) is taxable @ 18 per cent by virtue of Sr. No. 24 of Schedule-III of Notification No. 01/2017-CT(R), as amended.

The petitioner challenged penalty under Section 129(3) of UP GST Act for non-filling of Part B of e-Way Bill. Court noted bilty included truck details, no tax evasion intent. Citing precedents, quashed orders of penalty and appeal, directing security return to petitioner within six weeks. Petition allowed for technical error sans tax evasion intent.

The petitioner sought writ for quashing show cause notices and orders under UPGST Act by respondent No. 2, on the ground that similar proceedings are initiated under CGST Act also. Court dismissed writ citing availability of statutory remedy under Section 107. Directed petitioner to approach appellate authority, emphasizing opportunity for hearing and procedural compliance.

The writ petition challenges an order dated 26.04.2024 alleging violation of natural justice for lack of personal hearing. Court noted opportunity was granted on 15.04.2024, but petitioner did not attend. Citing office memo on procedural lapses, court dismissed the petition, allowing appeal to the Appellate Authority under section 107.

The writ petition challenges an adverse demand order issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. Citing precedents, the court sets aside the order dated 30.12.2023 and remits the matter for fresh proceedings with a directive for compliance with natural justice principles.

Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned Standing Counsel, SGST and Mr. D.J. Das, learned CGC submit that at this stage Notice be issued enabling them to complete their instructions.