The petitioner has filed the present petition, impugning a communication issued under Section 83 of CGST Act. No order under Section 83 of the CGST Act operating against the petitioner and the communications issued to various suppliers have been withdrawn.

This court directed the respondents to sanction the petitioner the refund amount with an appropriate interest in terms of Section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017.

The impugned Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is quashed and set aside. The Assistant Commissioner had refused to decide the matter on remand being directed by the Additional Commissioner because of the perception of the Assistant Commissioner that the Additional Commissioner passed an erroneous order. This Court does not see any prima facie reason to hold that the Assistant Commissioner has acted in accordance with the law.

Thee goods manufactured by respondent under Tariff Heading 85.47 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the other hand, according to the petitioner, the goods fall under Heading 39.19 of the same Schedule. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, therefore, gave notice to the respondent to show cause why the product should not be classified under Heading 39.19.

This court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order impugned in this petition.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a communication. This court set aside the impugned communication to the extent that it seeks to place a debit freeze on the petitioner’s account. The respondents are required to act in accordance with the statutory provisions.

The exercise of the power for ordering a provisional attachment must be preceded by the formation of an opinion by the Commissioner that it is necessary so to do for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue

In view of this court, no useful purpose would be served to keep the petitioner in further preventive custody. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail

Considering the fact the impugned order has been passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing although the petitioner filed a reply within the stipulated time, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent.

This writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies as per the GST Act.

Invocation of Section 130, in the absence of any material to suggest that there was an evasion of tax by the petitioners, cannot be said to be justified.

The writ petitioners, who are registered dealers under the GST Act, 2017 engaged in the business of sale and purchase of tobacco leaves have approached this Court assailing the summary order issued by the Respondent. This petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of three weeks from today.