The petitioner, an assessee under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘BGST Act’), is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration, for reason of his business being found non-existent.

1. The petitioner operates a sole proprietorship business under the name M/s Anand Impez, situated at 21, 3rd Floor, Synagogue Street, Burrabazar, Kolkata- 700001. The petitioner is a Registered Taxable Person (RTP) under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, holding GSTIN 19AAQPH8629C12E.

1. This matter concerning the demand for excess availed Inputs Tax Credit for the month of November, 2017-2018 in terms of Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and Meghalaya Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST), is before us today for hearing.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act as well as the order dated 25.09.2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as being beyond limitation.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Proper Officer under Section 130 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2017”), whereby the vehicles and the goods thereon were confiscated by the Proper Officer, who imposed penalty to the tune of Rs. 6,49,742/- upon the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged the respondent bank's action of adjusting Escrow Account funds meant for statutory liabilities, including GST, against loan repayments. This breach of the Escrow Agreement led to cascading financial issues, including GST non-compliance and NPA classification of the petitioner company. The court held the bank liable for violating Escrow Agreement terms, directing corrective action for GST compliance while acknowledging procedural gaps.

The High Court quashed a demand order under Section 74 of the GST Act and the appellate order, citing non-compliance with Section 75(4), which mandates an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing adverse orders. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with due process.

The High Court declined to entertain the petition against GST assessment orders, directing the petitioner to exhaust the statutory appellate remedy. It granted liberty to file an appeal within four weeks without limitation concerns, noting no prima facie violation of natural justice or contradictory precedents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both these petitions can be disposed of by common order since the issue of law and fact are substantially similar. He points out that two petitions were filed because they pertain to two different financial years.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

It is pointed out that the disposal of the petition was based on the orders made by us in Writ Petition No. 4500 of 2024 [2024] However, it is now pointed out to us that though this petitioner instituted Writ Petition No. 4500 of 2024, the subject matter of the said petition was different.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to make payment of GST @ 18%.