Section 50 of the GST Act can be applied demanding interest only in cases of belated cash payment towards GST, but not on input tax credit available all the while with the department to the credit of the assessee.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned summons issued by the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent, being the Central Authority as well as the second respondent, being the State Authority, have simultaneously initiated proceedings under the GST Act against the petitioner in respect of the same subject matter, which is impermissible under law as per the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017. This writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner`s reply to the impugned summons and decide as to whether the subject matter of the proceedings initiated by the second respondent as well as the proposed proceedings of the first respondent under the GST Act 2017 against the petitioner are one and the same.

This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent who shall seek a clarification from the Engineer-in-Chief and then decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of making of such representation

The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice issued by the respondent. Under the impugned notice on account of the alleged mismatch, the respondent has intimated the petitioner about the amount they are liable to pay towards CGST and SGST in respect of tax invoices. this writ petition is disposed of by directing the adjudicating authority to give due consideration submitted by the petitioner and to take a final decision on merits and in accordance with law

As an accused, if the Petitioner is subjected to a threat or coercion by the investigation officer, then the Petitioner would have their legal remedies open. If the Petitioner is entitled to a refund, on any other legal ground, that the Petitioner was not liable to reverse the ITC, then it is open to the Petitioner to apply for reversal/ refund by making a proper application or adopting such proceedings as available.

There is no scope of passing any interim order in the matter and the issue involved in this writ petition requires an affidavit from the respondent for final adjudication. List this matter for final hearing in the monthly list of May 2023.

The petitioner’s grievance against Rule 90 and Circular No. 125/44/2019 does not survive, therefore, this court does not consider it apposite to examine the same in this petition.

The bail application of the accused/applicant stands dismissed.

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the respondent canceling the GST registration of the petitioner as well as the order passed by the respondent rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirming the order of respondent. This court set aside the order of the respondent and remanded the matter back to the respondent.

By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107 of the GST Act was dismissed as being beyond limitation. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the respondent whereby a demand has been created under Section 74 of the GST Act. The matter is remanded to respondent to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing and after permitting the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice, in accordance with law

A challenge has been raised to the order whereby demand has been raised against the present petitioner. The present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.

The grievance of the petitioner is against the action of the respondents in seeking road permit for transporting goods/forest products after obtaining e-way bills. The petitioner contends that in spite of having e-way bills, the respondents were demanding road permit which, according to the petitioner, is wholly illegal and unsustainable in law. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is made out a case for interference and it is directed that if the petitioner is in possession of valid e-way bills, road permit should not be insisted upon it, however the petitioner is required to fulfill the other formalities in case, if the situation arises.