It is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

Rule 108 prescribes that the appeal has to be filed electronically, but it nowhere prescribes that the same is to be filed only after the impugned order is uploaded on the GSTN Portal. Accordingly, the limitation period to file an appeal will start from the date of service of the manual order

f the department is of the opinion that the registration of the Petitioner needs to be cancelled, it ought to follow the proper procedure in law by issuing fresh show cause notice and granting an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law

The petitioner’s only case is that as its GST registration was canceled by order, the petitioner was under the impression that it has no liability to the respondents. This contention is untenable in view of the alternative modes of service provided under Sec.169 (1) of the CGST Act. The writ petition is meritless and is consequentially dismissed

The case of the petitioner is that blocking of the Input Tax Credit is incorrect as the petitioner is being denied the utilization of input tax credit availed on the purchases made from various buyers for discharging tax liability. The respondents are directed to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 73 or 74 of the Act as the case may be to recover the ineligible input tax credit availed by the petitioner.

The case of the petitioner is that blocking of the Input Tax Credit is incorrect as the petitioner is being denied the utilization of input tax credit availed on the purchases made from various buyers for discharging tax liability. The respondents are directed to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 73 or 74 of the Act as the case may be to recover the ineligible input tax credit availed by the petitioner.

The specific case of the petitioner is that the product which is the subject matter of the dispute is Cut Tobacco or Manufactured Tobacco. The respondent has confirmed the demand without subjecting the product to testing and therefore there is a manifest of violation of the principles of natural justice. The court is inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

The Court has deprecated the practice of the respondent authorities in seeking to enforce tax liabilities by provisionally attaching a cash credit account. Issue notice to the respondent.

The challenge in this writ petition is merely to the show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the Act, 2017 whereby the petitioner has been called upon to submit its explanation/reply/objections to the show cause notice. The writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned attachment of the Bank Account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The writ petition is closed as nothing further survives for adjudication.

The writ petition is filed to quash show cause notices issued by the third respondent under Section 74 of the CGST Act. This court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out its statutory remedies, if any available, in accordance with law.

The only dispute between the parties is whether the respondent U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad is entitled to charge GST @ 1% or 8%. This court dispose of the writ petition with the observation, in case the petitioners place a copy of this order before respondent, the said respondent may ascertain the correct rate of tax applicable to the transaction from the appropriate authority under the GST Act and issue necessary communication to the petitioners in that regard.