S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
29 and
Section
30

Registration cancelled
after 31-12-2022 but
within the period of
amnesty scheme
eligible for amnesty
scheme of revocation
of cancelled
registration

Rajeev Kumar v.
Principal
Commissioner of
Central Goods and
Services Tax,
Ranchi [2023] 155
taxmann.com 54
(Jharkhand) (12-09-
2023)

The Court stated that Government of India had issued Notification No. 03/2023~Central Tax dated 31-3-2023 and extended the time up
to 30-6-2023, but the extension is granted to taxpayers granting time whose registration was cancelled on or before 31-12-2022. The
petitioner's cancellation was on 11-5-2023, hence the benefits of the said notification could not be availed by the petitioner. If the cancellation
was set aside and the GST is revoked the petitioner is willing to pay the GST along with late fee.
The Court gave anxious consideration and observed that had the cancellation of registration been prior to 31-12-2022, then petitioner
would have come within the time prescribed under the said notification. But the consideration for extension was pending during that period,
hence the Court was of the considered view that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit. Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition and
the directed to restore the petitioner's GST registration number.
Case Referred- Tvl. Suguna Cut piece v. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) (Mad)

2

Section
29 and
Section
30

Cancellation cannot
be retrospective when
the same was applied
by assessee from the
date of closure of
business

Krishna Traders v.
Commissioner of
Central Goods and
Service Tax [2023]
155 taxmann.com 52
(Delhi) (20-09-2023)

Petitioner had closed business with effect from 31-3-2022 and had, applied for cancellation of GST registration. Petitioner after closure of
business, shifted from New Delhi to Dehradun. SCN was issued calling upon the petitioner to furnish additional information in connection
with his application. Petitioner claimed that he did not receive the said notice as he had shifted to Dehradun. Since said SCN was not
responded, Proper Officer rejected application for cancellation. Thereafter, Proper Officer issued a fresh SCN proposing to cancel
petitioner's registration on account of failure to file tax returns for a continuous period of six months and cancelled registration with
retrospective effect. The impugned order included a tabular statement indicating that no tax was found due and payable by the petitioner.
The Court observed that cancellation of the GST registration was not an issue but the issue was related to cancellation of the GST
registration with retrospective effect. The Court directed that cancellation of petitioner's GST registration shall take effect from 31-3-2022

3

Section
16

ITC of the assessee
under the GST regime
cannot be denied
merely on the
difference of GSTR
2A and 3B

Henna Medicals v.
State Tax Officer
[2023] 155
taxmann.com 29
(Kerala) (19-09-2023

Impugned order was passed against the petitioner on the ground that there was a difference between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B.
The Court took into consideration earlier judgement passed in the matter of Diya Agencies v. The State Tax Officer and reference made
in the said judgement to the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of The State of Karnataka v. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private
Limited 2023 (3) TMI 533 SC as well as Calcutta High Court judgment in Suncraft Energy Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner,
State Tax, Ballygunge Charge [Judgment dated 2-8-2023 in MAT No. 1218/2023]. The Court relied upon the principle that ITC of the
assessee under the GST regime cannot be denied merely on the difference of GSTR 2A and 3B and thus petition was allowed and matter
was remitted back to Assessing Authority to examine evidence of petitioner irrespective of Form GSTR 2A and after examination of evidence
placed by the petitioner, order to be passed in accordance with the law.
Case Referred- Diya Agencies v. The State Tax Officer [Judgment dated 12-9-2023 in WPC 29769/2023]

4

Rule 142

As the Order visible to
the petitioner on
GSTN portal is not
complete copy of the
order, thus it must be
accepted in law that
the impugned order
does not contain
reasons.

[2022] 142
taxmann.com 470
(Allahabad)
Dauji Ispat (P.) Ltd.
v. State of U.P (10-
11-2021

Contention of the petitioner that the copy of the order uploaded on the GSTN portal and as is visible to the petitioner does not
mention/disclose the reasons therefor. The revenue admitted that due to some error copy of the impugned order visible to the petitioner on
the GSTN portal is not the complete copy of the order.
The Cour observed that it must be accepted in law that the impugned order does not contain reasons. This conclusion was drawn as
unless the complete copy of the order containing the reasons was served on the petitioner, he may never have any right to challenge the
same before any forum including the appellate forum. The fact that the Assessing Officer may have available to it another copy of the same
order which may contain reasons therefor, may be of no help to the Revenue Authority as such copy of the order was not served on the
petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be relied upon to any extent. The Court thus held that order served on petitioner was wholly defective and
lacking in vital aspect namely reasons for the conclusions drawn therein. Accordingly order DRC-07 dated 20-7-2021 was set aside and
the matter remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration

5

Section
62

Notice U/Sec 46 to be
issued before passing
order U/Sec 62.

[2022] 140
taxmann.com 405
(Jharkhand)
Vinman
Constructions Ltd.
v. State of
Jharkhand (22-02-
2022

Petitioner amongst other contentions contended that no notice to file return under Section 46 was served before passing order U/Sec 62.
The Court observed that requirement of notice before proceeding to pass order under section 62 has been laid down by Legislature so
that defaulter may have an opportunity to file return in case return has not been filed. It was also observed that there is a salutary purpose
for service of notice under section 46 before the proper officer proceeds to pass assessment order under section 62. The court also referred
to CBIC Circular dated 24-12-2019 which provides for service of notice under section 46 before the proper officer proceeds to assess the
tax liability of a return defaulter under section 62 of the Act. Moreover, sub-section (2) of section 62 further provides that if within thirty days
valid return has been filed, assessment order shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, the reason being that in case the return has not
been filed even after proper service of notice under section 46 of the Act, the penal consequences flows out of such an order passed under
section 62. The Court thus, set aside the order passed U/Sec 62 as no notice was served U/Sec 46 for filing of returns