There is no merit in the challenge to the impugned order passed under Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017. Considering the fact that the petitioner had filed these writ petitions before the expiry of the extended period of limitation for filing an appeal against the Assessment order, the petitioner is given the liberty to file a statutory appeal.

It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not carrying an e-way bill, which means that the proceeding of confiscation has been initiated under Section 130 (1) (iv) of the Act. The main argument on behalf of the petitioner is that it is not a case of evasion of tax; it is merely a failure to carry the e-way bill, which is a requirement of the Rules and as such is punishable under Section 164(4) of the Act or under Section 122(1)(xiv) of the Act. The petitioner was transporting goods without the e-way bill, with the intent to evade the tax. It attracts the provisions of Section 130 of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

The present petition is confined to the petitioner’s challenge to the Order-in-Original whereby the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled. The cancellation of the GST Registration of a taxpayer has wide implications for the taxpayer and has the propensity of bringing the taxpayer’s business to a standstill. It could never be the intention of the legislature to exclude persons from carrying on legitimate business. This court set aside the impugned Show Cause Notice.

The respondent is directed to examine the petitioner`s claim of ownership of goods and thereafter proceed afresh to determine the issue after affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Petitioner has challenged the preliminary reports on the alleged ground that the said officer/respondent no. 1 does not have any jurisdiction to ask the petitioners to file any objection to the aforesaid preliminary reports or ask the petitioners to avail the opportunity of personal hearing. This court is not inclined to interfere with the aforesaid impugned preliminary reports at this stage of investigation by which it has sought objection from the petitioners if they have any and accordingly these writ petitions being premature are dismissed.

Since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching an appellate tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, as an interim measure subject to the Petitioner depositing the entire tax demand within a period of fifteen days from today, the rest of the demand shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition.

Since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching an appellate tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, as an interim measure subject to the Petitioner depositing the entire tax demand within a period of fifteen days from today, the rest of the demand shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition.

The origination as well as termination of the goods in question was in State of Madhya Pradesh meaning thereby the authorities are of the view that the goods were not to be unloaded in the State of UP or any intention to avoid tax. However, mainly on the ground of some small technical fault for not carrying the e-way bill, the penalty ought not to have been levied in the absence of any discrepancy in document accompanying the goods.

hese are three petitions in which reliefs claimed are similar, namely in regard to the challenge to the provisional attachment of the Petitioners’ bank accounts exercising powers under Section 83 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This court is of the opinion that in the facts of the case, all such contentions need to be kept open to be agitated by the Petitioners after the decision on the show cause notices in question, as we have already observed that the show cause notices be adjudicated by 15th September 2023.

Though the appellants have been protected from 26 October 2021, there is no grievance made about any misuse made by them of the liberty granted in their favor. The only submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is that pursuant to the summons issued, the appellants are not producing the relevant documents. The appellants are bound to produce the relevant documents in their custody.

This Court refrains from entering into the merits of the matter and thus relegates the petitioner to file an appeal before the Competent Authority, which shall first go into the question date of communication of the impugned order to the petitioner and thereafter decide as to whether the appeal is filed within limitation period or not and if it is found that appeal is filed within limitation period, then the same shall be decided on its own merits provided that there is no other legal bar

The limited relief that the petitioner seeks in the present writ petition is for an appropriate direction to the respondents to decide the representation that the petitioner has made for the refund of excess GST that was required to be paid by the petitioner on the change of GST rate on works contract from 12% to 18% w.e.f. 18.07.2022. This writ petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit fresh representation.