Home Case Index All Cases GST This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

GST - Case Laws

Showing 301 to 320 of 11440 Records

• 2024 (4) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Cancellation of GST registration retrospectively - No reasons for cancellation in Show Cause Notice - Petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration - HELD THAT:- In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria. 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.

  It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a taxpayer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the tax payer during such period. Although, we do not consider it apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention is required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted. It is clear that both the petitioner and the respondent want the GST registration to be cancelled, though for different reasons.

  In view of the fact that the Petitioner does not seek to carry on business or continue the registration, the impugned order dated 08.06.2022 is modified to the limited extent that that registration shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from 08.06.2022 i.e., the date of the order for cancellation of registration. Petitioner shall make all the necessary compliances as required by Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

  Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 154 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Cancellation Of GST registration retrospectively - Validity Of Show Cause Notice - Does not specify any cogent reason - Notice does not give the name or designation of the officer or place where the petitioner has to appear - Petitioner being a senior citizen could not reply to the said notice as she received the notice late - No opportunity for personal hearing - request for condonation of delay is rejected - HELD THAT:- We notice that the Show Cause Notice and the impugned order are bereft of any details. Accordingly, the same cannot be sustained. Neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation. Further, the said Show Cause Notice also does not put the petitioner to notice that the registration is liable to be cancelled retrospectively. Thus, the petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration.

  It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a taxpayer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the taxpayer during such period. Although, we do not consider it apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention in this regard is correct, it would follow that the proper officer is also required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer’s registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.

  Thus, the order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The GST registration of the petitioner is restored. Petitioner shall, however, make all necessary compliances and file the requisite returns and information inter alia in terms of Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

  The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 153 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Cancellation Of GST registration retrospectively - Validity of Show Cause Notice - not specify any cogent reason - No opportunity of personal hearing - demand including penalty - order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 - Petitioner not declared the correct tax liability while filing the annual returns - HELD THAT:- We notice that the Show Cause Notice dated 31.01.2023 and the impugned order dated 09.02.2023 are bereft of any details. Accordingly, the same cannot be sustained. Neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation.

  It may further be noticed that registration of the petitioner was cancelled retrospectively and even as per the respondent, once the registration is cancelled retrospectively with effect from 02.07.2017, petitioner would not have been able to access the online portal and as such would not have received the Show Cause Notice on 23.09.2023 which led to the passing of the impugned order dated 14.12.2023.

  Thus, order dated 14.03.2024 rejecting the revocation of cancellation of GST registration and impugned order dated 09.02.2023 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The GST registration of the petitioner is restored. The petitioner shall, however, make all necessary compliances and file the requisite returns and information inter alia in terms of Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

  Further, the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Thus, orders dated 09.02.2023, 14.12.2023 and 14.03.2024 are set aside. Petition is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 152 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Cancellation of GST registration retrospectively - Show Cause Notice does not give any reasons - Petitioner seeking to cancel its registration - HELD THAT:- Petitioner had filed an application for revocation of cancellation of registration on the ground “Due to non filling of return you have cancelled my GST registration. But reason behind my this delay is my father expired during this period and i also changed my accountant whose delayed my return”

  Pursuant to order, we are informed that petitioner had appeared before the Assistant Commissioner on the date and time fixed in support of his application seeking revocation of the cancellation of registration. Learned counsel for respondent submits that certain queries have been raised which have been responded by the petitioner and accordingly no decision on the application for revocation has been taken.

  Thus, this petition is disposed of directing the Proper Officer to decide the application of the petitioner seeking revocation within a period of two weeks from today.

  Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 151 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Maintainability of petition - availability of statutory remedy of Appeal - absence of constitution of Appellate Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is desirous of availing the statutory remedy of Appeal under the said provisions. Apparently, acknowledging the absence of constitution of Appellate Tribunal, in exercise of the power conferred under section 172 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Government of India based on the recommendation made by the G.S.T. Council, has issued Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 on 03.12.2019 - In tune with the said Removal of Difficulties Order dated 03.12.2019, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing vide Circular No. 132/2/2020-GST Dated 18th March, 2020 has come out with the clarification in respect of appeal having regard to non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal.

  Taking into account the aforesaid Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 dated 03.12.2019 issued by the Government of India and subsequent clarification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (GST Policy Wing) vide Circular No. 132/2/2020 dated 18th March, 2020, it is deemed proper in the interest of justice to dispose of this writ petition subject to conditions imposed - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 150 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  GST registration was suspended - show cause issued as to why the registration be not cancelled - Validity of order - application seeking cancellation of GST registration was rejected - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has shut all business activities. As per the petitioner he on his own found discrepancy in his return and accordingly deposited a sum.

  Show cause notice dated 10.11.2023 was issued to the petitioner after a gap of 9 months seeking to cancel its registration. Said notification was issued on the ground that “Section 29(2)(e)- registration obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts”. The show cause notice required the petitioner to appear before the undersigned i.e. authority issuing the notice. Notice did not give the name or designation the officer or place where the petitioner has to appear.

  Thereafter, vide show cause notice dated 10.11.2023, the registration of the petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 10.11.2023.

  Thus, the order dated 10.11.2023 rejecting application of the petitioner seeking cancellation of its registration is set aside. The GST registration is cancelled with effect from 23.02.2023 i.e. the date when the petitioner first applied for cancellation of its registration. Petitioner shall, however, comply with Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and furnish all the details as required by the said provisions.

  The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 149 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Long delay in filing the revocation application - GST registration was cancelled - HELD THAT:- In that view of the matter, the delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.

  The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 148 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of show cause notice demanding tax and interest - No opportunity of personal hearing - non payment of tax due in the GSTR-1 return and claim of excess input tax credit - HELD THAT:- The appellant uploaded Ext.P3 reply in Form GST DRC-06 along with necessary attachments through the registered web portal of GST Department. The appellant specifically requested for an opportunity of personal hearing. However, it appears that the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P5 order finalising the demand without referring to Ext.P3 reply or granting the appellant an opportunity for personal hearing. Thus, the impugned order clearly violates the principles of natural justice. Hence, we are of the view that Ext.P5 cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside.

  Accordingly, we allow the appeal setting aside the impugned judgment as well as Ext.P5. The 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh order after taking into account the contentions raised by the appellant in Ext.P3 reply and after giving him an opportunity of personal hearing.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 147 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Limitation u/s 107 of the BGST Act - Filing of Appeal before the Appellate Authority - Notification No. 53 of 2023- Central Tax - extended the time for filing appeal against an order passed by the Proper Officer - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the appeal was filed and was dismissed by the first Appellate Authority. In such circumstances, it is only proper that the appeal be restored to the files of the Authority subject to the conditions under paragraph no. 3 being satisfied. Hence the petitioner would be entitled to satisfy paragraph no. 3 of the aforesaid Notification by paying up the deficient amounts as would be required to maintain the appeal under the notification.

  We specifically says the deficient amount, since on filing the appeal 10% of the amount of tax in dispute arising from the order impugned would/ought to have been remitted. We set aside the impugned order at Annexure-P/3 and direct the assessee to satisfy the aforesaid conditions before the time stipulated in Notification; i.e. 31.01.2024, in which event, the appeal would be taken up and considered on merits. And if the conditions are not satisfied, then necessarily the appeals ought to be rejected or would stand rejected.

  We allow the writ petition on the above terms.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 146 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
  

  Exemption from GST - Scope of the Term "Applicant" for seeking advance Ruling - services provided by the suppliers to the Board of Secondary Education in relation to conducting examination - N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 read with explanation in paragraph 3 clause (iv) and read with Circular No. 151/07/2021-GST dated 17th June, 2021 - HELD THAT:- In the case of M/s Anmol Industries Ltd. versus West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling, Goods and Services Tax, [2023 (5) TMI 288 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta held that the court set aside the ruling of AAR and remanded back the matter to AAR to decide the application on merits and in accordance with the law.

  It is observed that AAR Rajasthan have not taken note of the above judgement of the Hon'ble High Court as the judgement had not been pronounced at the relevant point of time.

  Thus, it will be in the fitness of things if the Authority for Advance Ruling consider the ratio of the judgement & pass a ruling thereafter. It is left open to the Authority for Advance Ruling to consider applicability of the judgement as per settled principles of jurisprudence.

  The Ruling of AAR. Rajasthan dated 17.06. 2022. is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the AAR to decide the application afresh after considering the judgement of Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta delivered in the case M/s Anmol Industries Ltd. Versus West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling, Goods and Service Tax.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 106 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of Demand Order - Seeking opportunity to upload the supporting documents, inter-alia, the invoices, payment proof etc. and also an opportunity of personal appearance - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner had appeared before the concerned authority, however, since a large number of matters were listed in one day before the proper officer and no record of appearance is maintained, the impugned order records that petitioner did not appear. He further submits that a reply was submitted, however, on account of an error in the office of the petitioner, annexures to the reply, though mentioned in the reply, could not be uploaded. He prays that an opportunity be given to the petitioner to upload the supporting documents, inter-alia, the invoices, payment proof etc. and also an opportunity of personal appearance be given to the petitioner.

  The impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the proper officer to re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice. Petitioner shall file all the relevant invoices and the supporting documents within a period of two weeks from today. Thereafter, the property officer shall re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice after giving an opportunity of personal appearance.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 105 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of Order for Demand Notice - Without considering any submission, the adjudication authority passed order - petitioner was under the bona fide belief that the 1st respondent is satisfied with the reply - filled appeal on online forum - sufficient cause from non-presenting the appeal within the period of three months as per Section 107(1) - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, though the petitioner has submitted his reply dated 17.05.2023 to the show cause notice in which the date was mentioned as 18.05.2023 and the petitioner was not aware of the order passed by the adjudication authority on 02.08.2023 and a DRC-07 notice on 03.08.2023. The petitioner was under the bona fide belief that the 1st respondent is satisfied with the reply dated 17.05.2023 and the proceedings are kept in abeyance. Only after the receipt of oral communication with regard to the recovery by the department the petitioner came to know about the proceedings of the 1st respondent.

  Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the delay of 2 months and 21 days is condoned on condition that the petitioner shall pay 15% of the disputed tax on or before 25.03.2024 and on payment of the same, the petitioner may prefer the appeal before the 1st respondent. The Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST – Appeal, Chennai, within a period of two weeks thereof.

  In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 104 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking revocation of the Cancellation of the GST registration retrospectively - petitioner not found functioning from the given address - HELD THAT:- Petitioner submits that he has already filed a revocation petition and candidly stated that in case a fresh field visit is required, petitioner would be willing to accept the same. Thus, petition is disposed of directing the proper officer to consider the revocation petition filed by the petitioner in accordance with law as also the contention of the petitioner that an incorrect Field Visit Report has been relied upon. The Competent Authority shall pass an order within a period of two weeks from today.

  Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 103 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Validity Of assessment order - No opportunity of personal hearing - tax demand - pre-GST period - notice in Form ASMT-10 issued alleging discrepancies in returns - HELD THAT:- The operative portion of the impugned assessment order clearly indicates that the tax liability was confirmed by disregarding the objections of the petitioner that the receipts in Form 26AS pertain to the pre-GST period. The relevant Form 26AS is on record and prima facie indicates that some of the receipts pertain to the pre-GST periods. In these circumstances, the interest of justice demands that the petitioner should be heard. Solely for this reason, the impugned assessment order warrants interference, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.

  Accordingly, the impugned assessment order is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand was received, the assessing officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months thereafter.

  W.P. is disposed of on the above terms.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 102 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
  

  Principles of natural justice - decision was not taken by same members of AAR who have heard the case - Taxability - club and association services - services such as short-term accommodation, restaurant and recreational services provided by them to its members - principle of mutuality - HELD THAT:- The contention of the appellant is noted that though the said amendment was retrospective, however, it was not passed by all state assemblies as well as it was not operational till the date when the Ruling was pronounced. This amendment was brought into force vide Notification No. 39/2021-Central Tax dated 21.12.2021 w.e.f. 1.1.2022. The Advance Ruling has been pronounced on 27.09.2021 on the basis of an amendment which was not operational as on the date of pronouncing Ruling. The appellant avers that such a Ruling is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed. The AAR need to take note of the contentions & pass a speaking order with reference to them.

  It is also noted that the decision was not taken by same members of AAR who have heard the case - This is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

  The Ruling of the AAR, Rajasthan is set aside matter is remanded back to AAR to decide the application de-novo after all the contentions of the appellant.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 101 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
  

  Scope of Advance Ruling application - Net impact of GST on the cost of a pre-GST lump sum contract - Computation of value of supply to levy GST of a lump sum work contract entered under pre-GST tax regime - HELD THAT:- The subject application for Advance Ruling made by the applicant is not maintainable and hereby rejected under the provisions of the GST Act, 2017.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 100 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
  

  Exemption from GST - Pure services or not - supply of service for turpentine treatment - supply of manpower - man with machine - security services - anti-termite services - service provided to Central Government, State Government, Local Authorities, Governmental Authorities, Government Entities such as Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samiti viz. Block Development Officer and Other Government Agencies viz. Central Warehousing Corporation - HELD THAT:- It is found appropriate to discuss the definition of "Pure Service". Nowhere "Pure Service" has been defined under GST Act and Rules, framed thereunder. However as per general terms, "Pure Service" is a service that does not involve the supply of any goods or the use of goods as a material for rendering the service. Examples of "Pure Service" include consultancy, training, software development, accounting, legal services, etc. Pure services are intangible and cannot be touched, tasted, or seen.

  Security service - HELD THAT:- It is found that Security Service, provided by the applicant, is not entrusted to a Panchayat under Article 243G of the Constitution or to a Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to avail exemption in term of Serial No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

  Manpower with machine supply - Anti-termite Treatment - Pest Control Service - HELD THAT:- The applicant has not supplied any copy of work order with regard to provision of Manpower with machine; Anti-termite Treatment and Pest Control Service, consequently it is not possible to determine the nature of service. However on perusal of the contents, mentioned in their submission, it is evident that these services have been supplied with goods. Therefore the same is termed as Composite Supply and not Pure Service.

  The applicant is not entitled to avail benefit under Sr. No 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 in respect of supply of Manpower with machine and Anti-termite Treatment, Pest Control Service.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 99 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA
  

  Supply or not - future contracts - works contract services - pure services or not - supply related to the business of pumping stations and reservoirs to be undertaken by the applicant is covered under the notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, amended by Notification No. 2/2018 dated 25.01.2018 and further Notification No. 16/2021 dated 18.11.2021 or not - HELD THAT:- The contract covers civil works wherein the supply of goods is also involved and thus such service falls under Works Contract service and hence it can't be a pure service. Further the applicant vide their letter dated 08.06.2022, addressed to the contractee M/s BWSSB clearly mentioned that "the O&M services consist of both supplies of labour / manpower and material and hence, the same shall be covered under works contract and cannot be considered in the nature of pure services".

  Thus, from the available information, the future contracts that the applicant intends to undertake are in the nature of works contract services for construction of pumping stations and reservoirs. The said services are not covered under any of the entries of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended.

  It is concluded that the question posed by the applicant is related to supplies undertaken by them, to M/s BWSSB, Bengaluru, prior to the date of filing of the application for advance ruling and thus no ruling can be given on the question. Thus the instant application is not maintainable and liable for rejection under the provisions of the GST Act 2017. Further, as for the question on future supplies is concerned, based on the available information the supply is of works contract services and is not covered under any of the entry in the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 59 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Violation of the principles of natural justice - No opportunity of personal hearing granted to the Petitioner - contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) - HELD THAT:- In the present case, by its reply dated 4th July 2023, Petitioner No. 1 specifically sought an opportunity of personal hearing. In these circumstances, Respondent No. 3 was bound to give a personal hearing to the Petitioner before passing the said Order dated 18th August 2023. Further, by the said Order dated 18th August 2023, a decision adverse to Petitioner No. 1 has been taken. Therefore, in these circumstances also, Respondent No. 3 was bound to given a personal hearing to Petitioner No. 1. However, no such personal hearing has been given by Respondent No. 3 to Petitioner No. 1 before passing the said Order dated 18th August 2023.

  Since the said Order dated 18th August 2023 has been passed without giving any personal hearing to the Petitioner, the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and exfacie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST / MGST Act.

  Thus, we dispose of this Writ Petition by the following Orders: - The impugned Order dated 18th August 2023 passed by Respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed and set aside.

  ---

• 2024 (4) TMI 58 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - no opportunity of personal hearing granted to the Petitioner - discrepancies noted in the returns - Seeks to quash the Order - contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) - HELD THAT:- In the present case, by its reply dated 10th July 2023, Petitioner No. 1 specifically sought an opportunity of personal hearing. In these circumstances, Respondent No. 3 was bound to give a personal hearing to the Petitioner before passing the said Order dated 22nd August 2023. However, no such personal hearing has been given by Respondent No. 3 to Petitioner No. 1 before passing the said Order dated 22nd August 2023.

  Since the said Order dated 22nd August 2023 has been passed without giving any personal hearing to the Petitioner, the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and ex-facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST / MGST Act.

  Thus, we dispose of this Writ Petition by the following Orders: - The impugned Order dated 22nd August 2023 passed by Respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed and set aside.

  ---

1 ....121314151617181920........ 572