In present case, the petitioner is in custody since 01.08.2022, charge-sheet has been filed on 30.09.2022 and he has already deposited about 10 per cent of the amount of alleged evaded tax duty. In view thereof; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Issue notice to the respondents and calling upon them to show cause within a month as to why the physical verification has not been completed within time allowed and why any final order of seizure has not been passed and the goods are being detained. List on 06.02.2023.

After hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence on record this instant writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner herein to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondents.

The Appellate Authority since has the power to extend the time to file an appeal, the petitioners, for the ends of justice, are entitled to get an opportunity to pray for such extension.

Writ petitioner has challenged an order making certain tax demands which provides for service by making available the order in the common portal. The lone point that is canvassed by the writ petitioner is, the impugned order has not been served on the writ petitioner by resorting to the method of service set out in Section 169 (1)(b) of TNG& ST Act. If the writ petitioner is able to satisfy the Appellate Authority qua limitation and pre-deposit, it is open to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law. There is no ground to interfere qua impugned order in the captioned writ petition.

In the present case, as the goods were intercepted by the mobile squad on 13.03.2018, the recommendation of the GST Council is applicable and there is no requirement for e-way bill till 31.03.2018. Writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.

The order impugned is appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

This order is passed on the ground that the petitioner had not declared its godown as an additional place of business. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside since, the same was not issued on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the same is set aside

The Court is of the view that since the adjudication proceedings are yet to commence, the better course would be to permit the Petitioners to raise all the pleas that they have urged in the present petitions in their reply to the impugned SCN that has been challenged in these writ petitions and for the adjudication proceedings to be concluded in a timebound manner

As the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order however it is made clear that this writ Court is not expressing any view or opinion on the merits of the matter and it is also made clear that it is open to the writ petitioner to apply afresh for registration and if the writ petitioner chooses to apply afresh for registration, the application shall be processed on its own merits and in accordance with law.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed under section 74(9) of CGST Act. Present writ petition deserves to be allowed, as admittedly for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner a notice as provided for under Rule 142(1A) of the Rules in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A was not issued, which provided for communication of details of any tax, interest and penalties as ascertained by the officer.

Jasmine M.M.-GP for the Respondent.