JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishi Kumar learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Since the issues involved in these two writ petitions are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order.

3. The present writ petitions have been filed assailing the order dated 7.1.2022 passed by the respondent no.1 in GST Appeal Nos.67 of 2020 & 66 of 2020, Assessment Year 2018-19 under the provisions of Section 73 of the UP Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, whereby the order passed on 10.07.2020 was confirmed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prior to commencement of GST regime, the petitioner was registered under the VAT Act as well as under the Service Tax Act under the trade name M/s Akash Enterprises. He further submitted that under the VAT Act, the petitioner is having TIN No.09278704481S and under the Service Tax Act, the petitioner is having registration No.ATIPK4398ND001. He further submitted that after enforcement of GST regime, the petitioner were required to be migrated only one GSTIN, but due to the fault of respondents, two GSTINs were provided by the authorities; one under the VAT Act i.e. 09ATIPK4398N2ZR and another under the Service Tax Act i.e. 09ATIPK4398N1ZS. He further submitted that the petitioner on getting the first registration having GSTIN No.09ATIPK4398N2ZR, started doing his business and intimated to his supplier and purchaser the said GSTIN. He further submitted that the petitioner was engaged in the business of e-charging vouchers business of mobile phones and was doing his business with Reliance Industries Limited and and started issuing tax invoices and charging tax.

5. He further submitted that when the petitioner got the second provisional GSTIN number i.e.09ATIPK43981ZS, he gave this GSTIN number to other telecom companies. He further submitted that since the aforesaid first GSTIN was effective from 1.7.2017, but the status of the same become 'not migrated' on website, therefore the amount of valid Input Tax Credit (in short 'ITC') earned by the petitioner on the aforesaid GSTIN was claimed/availed by him on his GSTIN No.09ATIPK4398N1ZS at the time of filing returns, due to which the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. He further submitted that the ITC availed in Form GSTR- 3B which the supplier has to file in GST- 01 as well as in return in the form of GSTR-3B. If there is no difference in GSTIN, the benefit of the same cannot be given. He further submitted that since there was no mistake on the part of the petitioner, the benefit has illegally been denied up to the first stage.

6. He further submitted that during the pendency of the present petitions, a Circular has been issued vide letter No. GST/2022-03/53 on 02.01.2003.

7. He further prayed that since the benefit of said circular may be accorded to the petitioner, therefore the matter may be remanded back to the authorities for deciding afresh in view of the aforesaid circular dated 2.1.2023.

8. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgement of Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Shree Krishna Traders v. State of U.P. , and Another passed in Writ Tax No.1106 of 2023 decided on 25.09.2023.

9. Learned Standing Counsel rebutted the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the benefit of circular dated 2.1.2023 cannot be accorded to the petitioner as the matter has already been adjudicated up to the first stage of first appellate authority and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present writ petitions.

10. This Court has perused