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.

Issuance of notices for recovery of the input tax credit availed by the recipient is not justified without conducting any enquiry on the supplier.

The substantive prayer as made in the petitions is a challenge to the Constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 17(5)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Disposed of as withdrawn.

The substantive prayer as made in the petitions is a challenge to the Constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act. A similar issue is pending consideration of the Supreme Court as informed at the Bar. Considering the complexion of the present proceedings, the present petition can be permitted to be withdrawn.

The applicant is not entitled to avail of the input tax credit charged on inward supply of motor vehicles which are used for demonstration purposes in the course of business of supply of motor vehicles as input tax credit on capital goods.

The court is inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal by directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law.

This Court is inclined to hold that the matter be remanded to the appellate authority for revisiting the same upon consideration of the submission which may be made on behalf of both the parties before the authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the appeal upon affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the interested persons including the petitioner, and pass a reasoned and speaking order.