|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (6) TMI 1784
Challenge to appellate order passed u/s 107 of the WBGST /CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It appears that being aggrieved by the order dated 19th January 2021 passed under Section 74 of the said Act for the tax period April 2018 to November 2019, the petitioner though belatedly had filed an appeal by availing the Scheme to belatedly file an appeal, thereby depositing 12.5 per cent of the disputed tax. However, in the interregnum it appears that a sum of Rs.1,45,188/- had been recovered from the petitioner’s credit ledger against demand id ZD190121004969C as would corroborate from the print out of the screenshot from the petitioner’s portal which has not been appropriately given credit in Form GST APL – 04, inasmuch as, the total demand in Form GST DRC – 07 on account of tax being Rs.1,14,736/-, and Rs.1,45,188/- having been recovered pursuant to the above demand, no further demand on account of such disputed tax could have been raised by the respondents.
If the respondents have chosen to recover a sum of Rs. 1,45,188/- from the petitioner against the demand raised by the respondents in Form GST DRC – 07 dated 19th January 2021, the said amount ought to have been adjusted against the principal tax demand at the first instance. There being no clarity in the order as regards the above, the aforesaid order cannot be sustained and the matter should be remanded back to the appellate authority.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1783
Seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, for the offences punishable under Section 132(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 - large-scale fraudulent scheme under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 - fraudulent availment of ITC - Challenge to summons issued - Challenge to adjudication based solely on statements recorded by the investigating officer -
Fraudulent availment of ITC - fraudulent filing of invoices - HELD THAT:- A reading of various statements on record, particularly those made by individuals associated with other firms, reveals that the petitioner was not just a passive consultant but actively managed GST filings and invoice generation for several entities, including M/s. Mithra Enterprises. Even the proprietor of M/s. Mithra Enterprises has stated that no actual goods were involved and that the invoices were bogus. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not linked to the fraudulent filing of invoices, and the matter requires adjudication.
Challenge to summons issued - case of petitioner is that the summons issued by Respondent No.2 did not clarify whether he was being summoned as an accused or a witness, thereby violating Instruction No.3/2022-23 - HELD THAT:- It is noted that the summons in question were issued in the year 2020, while the cited instruction came into effect much later. Hence, the instruction cannot operate retrospectively, and there is no merit in this contention.
Challenge to adjudication based solely on statements recorded by the investigating officer - It is contended that the department has already adjudicated the matter and imposed a penalty of ₹1,00,000/- on the petitioner, and such adjudication based solely on statements recorded by the investigating officer and he already filed appeal against the said finding, whereas, the said departmental finding is in force as on today - HELD THAT:- It is not a ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and this is an issue to be determined during trial, particularly in light of the multiple statements implicating the petitioner.
It is well established that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., does not function as an appellate or revisional Court. The inherent powers under Section 482 are to be used sparingly and with caution. The present case involves incomplete and contested facts, and the evidence is yet to be fully collected and presented before the trial Court. Where both factual and legal issues are of significant complexity and magnitude, and where a complete picture cannot be formed without full material and examination, the High Court should not prematurely interfere. Therefore, this petition is not liable to be entertained at this stage and the same is liable to be dismissed.
This criminal petition is dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1782
Challenge to order passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 - appeal has been rejected by the reasons of the petitioner failing to make payment of the pre-deposit amount - HELD THAT:- Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that though the petitioner has a further statutory remedy in the form of an appeal before the appellate tribunal, however since the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted, taking into consideration the fact that the amount equivalent to the pre-deposit amount has already been deposited by the petitioner, in the fitness of things at this stage, it would be prudent to remand the matter back to the appellate authority for a decision on merit.
The appellate order dated 29th November, 2024 stands set aside - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1781
Challenge to Ext.P7 order passed by the 2nd respondent based on Ext.P5 show-cause notice issued to the petitioner under Section 74 (1) of the CGST/ KGST Act, 2017 - challenge to proceedings u/s 74 of the CGST Act - willful suppression or fraud are involved - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has raised various contentions with regard to the non applicability of Section 74 of the CGST Act, mainly relying upon Exts.P1 and P2 return submitted by the petitioner along with Ext.P1 reconciliation statement, rectifying the mistake. However, on going through Ext.P7, it can be seen that the said contention was rejected taking note of the fact that the entire short payment of tax was not paid by the petitioner and a portion of the same is paid as evidenced by Ext.P3. Apart from the above, it is also a relevant fact to be noticed that as far as Ext.P7 order is concerned, it is appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act and this writ petition has been submitted by the petitioner without resorting to the same.
The petitioner contends that, in Ext.P5 show-cause notice, no circumstances are mentioned which warrants invocation of Section 74 and interference of this Court is necessary, particularly since, even before the initiation of proceedings under Section 74, the petitioner had rectified the mistake as evidenced by Ext.P1, on 29.11.2019 itself. However, this is also a matter which can be taken up in the appeal and that reason by itself cannot be treated as a valid ground to entertain a writ petition instead of the statutory remedy available to the petitioner.
Conclusion - The contentions raised by the petitioner need not be considered in a writ proceeding and the petitioner can be relegated to invoke the statutory remedy. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of without considering the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, and instead, relegating the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedies available.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1780
Violation of principles of natural justice - Non-service of SCN - petitioner have not received any physical copy of the show cause notice and also personal hearing notice - Challenge to assessment order passed by the respondent relating to the Financial Year 2019-2020 - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the impugned show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal in View Additional Notices and Orders” Tab. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.
No doubt sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.
As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said issue was already dealt with by this Court in SRI GANAPATHI PANDI INDUSTRIES [2024 (10) TMI 1631 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], etc, whereby, this Court, vide common order dated 17.10.2024, had quashed the impugned order passed by the Department. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 as regards the aforesaid issue pertaining to Section 16(4) of GST Act. As far as other issues are concerned, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the respondent since lack of opportunities being provided to the petitioner.
he impugned order dated 16.08.2024 is quashed only to the extent of issue relates to the claim made by the petitioner for ITC, which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017 - As far as other issues are concerned, the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, on condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount in respect of the impugned assessment period, as agreed by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1779
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- This Court is regularly following the earlier order passed in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, [2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein this Court allowed the petition subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.
Under these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to restore the GST registration subject to the petitioner complying with the conditions imposed in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center’s case - petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1778
Refund claim - time limitation - refund application filed beyond the period of two years as prescribed under section 54(1) of the Act as the relevant date would be date of communication of such appellate order - Applicability of Rule 113 of the Central/State Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Issue notice returnable on 2nd May, 2025.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1777
Violation of principles of natural justice - non-consideration of objections raised by the petitioner, in their correct perspective - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order of assessment has revealed that, the 3rd respondent had not adverted to some of the issues raised by the petitioner on the question of whether the Trial Balances obtained from the 3rd respondent related only to the turnover of supplies made within the State of Andhra Pradesh or whether the related supplies made outside the State of Andhra Pradesh were also included in the Trial Balance. It also appears that, the 3rd respondent has not taken into account the invoices produced by the petitioner, with the necessary endorsement, in relation to the supplies made to the SEZ unit.
In such circumstances, a case of non-consideration of objections, filed by the petitioner, is made out.
It would be appropriate to set aside the order of assessment and remand the matter back to the 3rd respondent for re-appreciation of the grounds raised by the petitioner and for a verification of the invoices and other documents produced by the petitioner for claiming reduction of liability of the petitioner - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1721
Blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) - provisionally attaching the petitioner's bank account - Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - opportunity of hearing provided or not - reasons to believe - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of this Court in the case of K-9-Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka [2024 (10) TMI 491 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'in the absence of valid nor sufficient material which constituted ‘reasons to believe’ which was available with respondents, the mandatory requirements/pre- requisites/ingredients/parameters contained in Rule 86A had not been fulfilled/satisfied by the respondents- revenue who were clearly not entitled to place reliance upon borrowed satisfaction of another officer and pass the impugned orders illegally and arbitrarily blocking the ECL of the appellant by invoking Rule 86A which is not only contrary to law but also the material on record and consequently, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.'
In the instant case since no pre-decisional hearing are provided/granted by the respondents before passing the impugned order, coupled with the fact that the impugned order invoking Section 86A blocking of the Electronic credit ledger of the petition does not contain independent or cogent reasons to believe/accept by placing reliance upon reports of enforcement authority which is impermissible in law, since the same is on borrowed satisfaction as held by Division Bench, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
Conclusion - i) The impugned orders blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger and provisionally attaching the petitioner's bank account are illegal, arbitrary, and passed without compliance with mandatory procedural and substantive requirements. ii) The respondents failed to form an independent, cogent opinion based on tangible material as required under Rule 86A and Section 83 of the CGST Act. iii) The petitioner is denied the opportunity of pre-decisional hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
The concerned respondents are directed to unblock the Electronic credit ledger of the petitioner immediately upon the receipt of copy of this order, so as to enable the petitioner to file returns forthwith - Impugned Orders are hereby quashed - petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1666
Levy of penalty u/r 26 of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - documents were duly signed as required under the relevant GST rules or not - unsigned order - respondent did not provide material sought for by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not respond to the SCN - HELD THAT:- There is nothing on record to suggest that the impugned show cause notices or orders have not been signed either digitally or physically as is otherwise required under Rule 26 of the Rules and therefore, the same cannot be said to be unsigned document as the orders and show cause notices are duly uploaded on the GST Portal.
It is also pertinent to note that the learned advocate for the petitioner has failed to make out any case for remand on the ground of unsigned order because if we come to the conclusion that the order is unsigned, the same would be liable to be quashed and set aside whereas in the facts of the case, the petitioner is not able to demonstrate that the impugned orders are not electronically signed. Without there being any digital signature, no order can be uploaded as per Advisory dated 25.09.2024. Even otherwise, the petitioner has remained totally negligent for the business carried out by the petitioner during the period 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 in the State of Gujarat. It is also required to be noted that though the petitioner has submitted that registration of the petitioner is cancelled on 28.02.2019, no material is placed on record to demonstrate such fact.
It appears that in facts of each of the respective cases, it was found that the order was not signed either digitally or physically as required under Rule 26 of the Rules. However, in the facts of the present case, the impugned orders are uploaded on the GSTN Portal and without signatures, the orders cannot be uploaded. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned orders are unsigned is not acceptable as there is nothing on record to show that unsigned orders are uploaded on the Portal.
Considering the facts of the case it appears that the petitioner has remained negligent after cancellation of registration in the year 2019 and has not even bothered as to what happened to the returns filed by the petitioner as it is admitted by the petitioner that he has shifted to Hyderabad on closure of business in Gujarat and is having the registration under the GST Act in States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Thus, the petitioner is now raising technical grounds so as to challenge the impugned orders by making alternative submissions which cannot be accepted in facts of the present case.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1665
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - lack of jurisdiction - Detention of goods - levy of tax and penalty - reliance placed upon reasons which were not part of the show cause notice - power of judicial review - HELD THAT:- This Court has carefully examined the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 in the context of the material available on record, the statutory provisions under the CGST Act, and the principles of natural justice. The impugned order reflects due application of mind to the facts and submissions presented. The order sets out the factual matrix, records the reply submitted by the Petitioner, and provides cogent reasons for rejecting the same. No procedural impropriety, manifest illegality, or violation of the principles of natural justice has been demonstrated by the Petitioner. The authorities have acted within the scope of their powers under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, and their conclusions are based on a reasonable appreciation of the available evidence.
The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not extend to reappreciation of evidence or substitution of factual findings, particularly when an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the statute.
This Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. However, the Petitioner is granted liberty to pursue the remedy of statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, if so advised.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1664
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - lack of jurisdiction - Detention of goods - levy of tax and penalty - reliance placed upon reasons which were not part of the show cause notice - power of judicial review - HELD THAT:- This Court has carefully examined the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 in the context of the material available on record, the statutory provisions under the CGST Act, and the principles of natural justice. The impugned order reflects due application of mind to the facts and submissions presented. The order sets out the factual matrix, records the reply submitted by the Petitioner, and provides cogent reasons for rejecting the same. No procedural impropriety, manifest illegality, or violation of the principles of natural justice has been demonstrated by the Petitioner. The authorities have acted within the scope of their powers under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, and their conclusions are based on a reasonable appreciation of the available evidence.
The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not extend to reappreciation of evidence or substitution of factual findings, particularly when an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the statute.
This Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. However, the Petitioner is granted liberty to pursue the remedy of statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, if so advised.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1663
Cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration - non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- As per Section 29 (2) (c), an officer, duly empowered, may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he deems fit, where any registered person, has not furnished returns for a continuous period of 6 (six) months. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 has laid down the procedure for cancellation of the registration.
Having regard to the fact that the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled under Section 29 (2) (c) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the reason that the petitioner did not submit returns for a period of 6 (six) months or more and the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and cancellation of registration entails serious civil consequences, this Court is of the considered view that in the event the petitioner approaches the officer, duly empowered, by furnishing all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer duly empowered, has the authority and jurisdiction to drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form.
This writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner shall approach the concerned authority within a period of 2 (two) months from today seeking restoration of her GST registration. If the petitioner submits such an application and complies with all the requirements as provided in the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the concerned authority shall consider the application of the petitioner for restoration of the GST registration and passed necessary orders in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1662
Challenge to SCN issued u/s 122 (1)(xviii) read with Section 35(6) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 - authority of proper officer under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 to seize goods and documents during inspection without recording satisfaction or reasons as required under Section 67 of the said Act - HELD THAT:- Noting that the petitioner no.1 is exclusively involved in the supply of goods to the Ministry of Defence which are required by the Indian Army and further taking into consideration that there are subsisting work order by the Ministry of Defence for supply of diverse items, having regard to the suggestion made by the petitioners, the petitioner no.1 shall be at liberty to seek release of the goods subject to the petitioner no.1 securing 20 per cent of the penalty amount as proposed in the show cause notice dated 27th May, 2025 by way of a bank guarantee.
In the event, the petitioner no.1 approaches the proper officer with a written application enclosing therewith a bank guarantee aggregating 20 per cent of the proposed demand in terms of the show cause dated 27th May, 2025 issued under Section 122 of the said Act, the proper officer shall forthwith take steps for release of the goods and shall release the same as expeditiously as possible but not later than three (3) working days from the date of filing of such application.
Since, prima facie, it appears that the aforesaid show cause has been issued under Section 122 read with Section 35(6) of the said Act, and noting that as per Section 35(6) of the said Act, the respondents were obliged to proceed under Section 73 or 74 of the said Act, though hearing of the show cause may proceed further but the final decision in this regard shall not be communicated to the petitioner without leave of this Court - List this matter for further consideration under the same heading in the Combined Monthly List of July, 2025.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1661
Challenge to assessment order - petition filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 117 of the TNGST Act - mismatching between the reported turnover in GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has no case to challenge the impugned order even if the writ petition is filed at an earlier point of time. This writ petition, therefore, is dismissed not only on the ground of laches but also because the petitioner has admitted to the tax liability in a reply dated 06.02.2023.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1660
Appropriate forum - appellate authority or not - discrepancy and mismatch that crept in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, the issue arising out of the discount also is an issue that is interconnected with the mismatch of the credit availed by the petitioner in terms of the return in GSTR3B and GSTR2A. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition to challenge the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The issue has to be decided only by the appellate authority under the hierarchy prescribed under the provisions of the TNGST Act 2017/CGST Act 2017. Therefore, this writ petition cannot be entertained, and has to be dismissed with liberty to file a statutory appeal.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1659
Rejection of application filed u/s 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017 for rectification of the assessment order - typographical errors - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This court finds that there is a violation of principles of natural justice. Considering the same, the second mentioned impugned order dated 05.06.2025 is set aside, and it is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The respondent is directed to pass a fresh order as expeditiously as possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1658
Levy of interest and penalty - tax paid though belatedly - petitioner's reply has not been considered - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There is a dispute that the petitioner has paid disputed tax belatedly and therefore, the interest has been levied under Section 50(1) of CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 r/w Rule 88B of the CGST Rule, 2017. Therefore, there cannot be any scope for any interference.
Demand of interest - HELD THAT:- The petitioner may have a case for interference that the penalty imposed for a sum of Rs. 5,72,052/- under Section 73(9) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 r/w Section 122(2) (a) of the respective Act, 2017. Therefore, the Court is inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition at the time of admission by directing the petitioner to pay the interest levied vide the impugned order and giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order insofar as the imposition of penalty is concerned.
Demand of penalty - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has to comply with the other mandatory requirements under Section 107 of respective GST enactments including pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed penalty. If such appeal is filed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, together with the above deposit, the Appellate Commissioner is directed to consider the appeal and dispose of the same without reference to limitation, if any that he may rise.
Conclusion - i) The interest demand under Section 50(1) CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 88B was confirmed and upheld. ii) The penalty demand was not interfered with at the writ stage; however, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the penalty through statutory appeal, subject to pre-deposit conditions. iii) The Court declined to interfere on grounds of non-consideration of reply in writ jurisdiction, leaving the issue open for appellate adjudication.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1657
Cancellation of GST registration in Form GST REG-19 which precedes the SCN - failure of the petitioner to file returns for the continues period of 6 months - HELD THAT:- The issue is now covered partly in favour of the petitioner by balancing the interest of the Revenue in terms of the decision of this Court in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Centre Vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and another [2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], which has also been followed recently by this Court in Tvl.Blue Diamond Engineers, rep. by its Proprietor, V.Rajan, Kanyakumari District Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai and other) [2024 (4) TMI 1167 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
Considering the same, the petitioner is directed to comply with the directions stipulated in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Centre Vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and another. Subject to the petitioner complying with the conditions stipulated therein, the impugned order shall stand quashed.
The Writ Petition stands allowed at the time of admission.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1656
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - petitioner assessee has stopped filing GSTR-3B returns for more than six consecutive months and also not responded to the GSTR-3A notice - HELD THAT:- Having perused of the decision in Krishanu Borthakur [2025 (1) TMI 721 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] would cover the case of the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to be provided with the similar relief as granted in the above case - it was held in the above case that 'If the petitioner is not included within the GST regime, then any statutory dues that may be required to be deposited by the petitioner will not be deposited and which will not be in the interest of the revenue. Therefore, in order that the petitioner is required to comply with his statutory obligations of payment of taxes under the GST regime, it would be necessary for the departmental authorities to re-consider the prayer of the petitioner for revocation of his cancellation of GST registration.'
This present writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of CGST and CX Pasighat Range, Arunachal Pradesh, shall revoke the cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner and shall intimate the petitioner the total outstanding statutory dues, standing in the name of the petitioner, if any. Upon payment of outstanding statutory dues, if any, under GST by the petitioner, the respondent authority shall pass appropriate order and restore the GST registration of the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
........
|
9911796707
