-Since the period and subject of investigation of State and Central Authorities were different therefore no violation of Section 6 of CGST/SGST Act, 2017
-Period involved in filling and decision of revocation application to be excluded for computing limitation for filing of appeal against cancellation order
-Amount deposited in cash ledger allowed to be treated as Pre-Deposit of filing of appeal
-No interest payable as GSTR-3B filed with zero amount due to technical glitches without any fault of the Taxpayer
-Cancellation order passed without reason invalid but at the same time petitioner also levied with cost as he did not appear despite multiple opportunities
Since the period and subject of investigation of State and Central Authorities were different therefore no violation of Section 6 of CGST/SGST Act, 2017
Yash Alloys India v. Union of India  155 taxmann.com 594 (Bombay) (23-10-2023)
Primary grievance of the petitioner was that both State Authorities have undertaken investigation, on the subject matter, which is already under the investigation by the Central Authorities and thus there is violation of Section 6(2)(b).
Period involved in filling and decision of revocation application to be excluded for computing limitation for filing of appeal against cancellation order
Sakthi Fashions v. Appellate Authority/Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeals-II)  155 taxmann.com 314 (Madras) (12-09-2023)
Petitioner was issued with SCN dated 27-1-2023 to show cause as to why registration obtained by the petitioner should not be cancelled. The order dated 6-2-2023 in Form GST REG-19 came to be passed cancelling the registration. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier filed application for revocation of cancellation of the registration in Form GST REG-19 vide order dated 6-2-2023. A SCN was issued on 27-2-2023. However, petitioner failed to reply to the same. Therefore, application filed for revocation of cancellation of registration was rejected on 14-3-2023. In view of the above, petitioner filed a Statutory Appeal on 14-7-2023 with a delay of 39 days against the order dated 6-3-2023.
Amount deposited in cash ledger allowed to be treated as Pre-Deposit of filing of appeal
Batra Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. Union Territory of Ladakh  155 taxmann.com 266 (Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh) (15-09-2023)
The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non-payment of 25% pre-deposit of the penalty as mandated under proviso (1) to sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of CGST Act 2017, read with Section 21 of the UTGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had instead of depositing the said pre-deposit amount with the revenue deposited the same in the electronic cash ledger.
No interest payable as GSTR-3B filed with zero amount due to technical glitches without any fault of the Taxpayer
Vishnu Aroma Pouching (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India  129 taxmann.com 16 (Gujarat) (14-11-2019)
Petitioner had uploaded the return for August, 2017 within the period provided therefore and situation was that though petitioner had discharged tax liability aggregating Rs. 128.63 crores (rounded off), such liability was not shown as discharged in the electronic liability register only on account of glitches and crashing of the system on 20th and 21st September. Consequently, even though the petitioner had discharged the tax liability in time, it was still treated as a defaulter because all the figures in GSTR- 3B for August 2017 are zeros owing to system failure.
Cancellation order passed without reason invalid but at the same time petitioner also levied with cost as he did not appear despite multiple opportunities
 155 taxmann.com 317 (Allahabad)
The Court observed that the order of cancellation was passed without assigning any reason and revocation application was also been rejected without assigning any cogent reason and thereafter appeal was also dismissed by the impugned order. Reason are the heartbeat of every conclusion. In the absence of reasons order becomes lifeless. Non recording of reasons renders the order to be violative of principles of natural justice. Reasons ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. It enables litigant to know reasons for acceptance or rejection of his prayer. It is statutory requirement of natural justice. Reasons are really linchpin to administration of justice. It is link between the mind of the decision taker and the controversy in question. Thus, failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Thus, it was held that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. However, petitioner also neither submitted reply in pursuance of notice nor appeared before the respondent authority in spite of various dates fixed before the first appellate authority, therefore, some cost was thought fit to be imposed upon the petitioner. Thus, in the result, the writ petition was allowed and impugned orders dated 20-11-2020/7-12-2020, 21-1-2021 and 17-11-2021 are set aside subject to cost of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand), which shall be deposited by the petitioner before the first appellate authority. (Section 29, 30 and 107 of CGST Act, 2017)