-Section 73-SCN only can be taken forward, by permitting the petitioner to urge all contentions in relation to the SCN and thus. statement of one of the transporters recorded during enquiry, needs to be provided to the petitioner

-Section 129- Delivery Note and Delivery Challan are different documents and penalty confirmed since goods during movement only had delivery note and not delivery challan as required under Rule 55 read with Rule 138 along with document substantiating goods were sent for approval and payment of tax & penalty also voluntarily deposited by petitioner at the time of release of goods

-Section 75-Impugned order quashed as authority neither replied to the request of petitioner for grant of 30-days time to file reply nor did it provide opportunity of being heard even though the same was requested by the petitioner

-Section 61-Impugned SCN stayed as Court prima facie found force in contention of petitioner that issuance of SCN U/Sec 73 was without compliance of the mandatory conditions precedent, prescribed under provisions of Section 61 r/w Rule 99, to derive jurisdiction to issue SCN U/sec 73

Section 9- Petitioner directed to refund the tax collected from customers since services such as application fee for releasing connection of electricity, rental charges, testing fee, labour charges for shifting meters, etc. are not chargeable to GST as they are bundled supplies and form an integral part of the supplies of distribution of electricity.

Section 73- SCN quashed and matter remanded back to conduct investigation at supplier end as authority failed to conduct investigation when petitioner in their reply to Pre-SCN had requested authority to investigate at the supplier’s end, where there was an allegation of retrospective cancellation of the supplier’s registration.

Section-54-Matter remanded back as order failed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner on record

-Section 168-Since the impugned circular (Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST dated 31-12-2018) was already aside by a coordinate Bench of the Court, therefore, petitioners’ grievance with regard to the said circular does not survive

-Section 67-Since reason for carrying out search were provided to Joint Commissioner subsequently which he signed on the date following the search, thus, the search carried out was illegal as authorisation was vitiated

-Section 54- Refund under inverted duty Structure does not contemplate comparing rate of tax on the principal input with that on principal output and Circular No.135/05/2020 has no application where ITC, has accumulated on account of rate of taxes on certain inputs being higher than tax chargeable on output, notwithstanding that one of the main input and output is chargeable at the same rate of tax

-Section 9- It was difficult to accept that petitioner could collect any GST from its consumers after paragraph 4 of the circular No. 34 Dated 01-03-2018 has been set aside but since petitioners Transfer Petition was pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court and tagged with batch of other matters, including the one arising from decision of Gujarat High Court, consideration of the present petition was deferred

-Section 107-Notwithstanding order was passed in the name of Driver but consignor can also file appeal against order U/Sec 129 as person aggrieved by any decision passed may prefer appeal to Appellate Authority U/Sec 107

-Section 56-Interest @ 6% is payable for the period commencing from a date immediately after expiry of sixty days from the date of an application under Section 54(1), however, interest @ 9% payable for period covered under proviso to Section 56, if a person’s claim is a subject matter of further proceedings, which finally culminate in favour of applicant

-Section 16- Merely on the ground that in Form GSTR-2A the said tax is not reflected should not be a sufficient ground to deny the assessee the claim of the input tax credit

-Section 50- Once it is proved that amount of excess ITC though entered in the ledger in excess, was never utilized and since it was reversed prior to utilizing, demand of interest as well as penalty was not at all tenable

-Section 140-Transitional credit can only be disallowed because of non-conformity with condition stipulated in Section 140(3) and not because of considerations which were the subject matter of assessment under JVAT Act

-Section 74- Order passed by the same officer who carried out search and seizure at petitioner’s premises set aside