There is a shadow of doubt, which needs to be cleared. Therefore, it would ideal for the petitioner to work out remedy before the appellate authority/appellate forum. This Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observations and liberty.

The petitioners are essentially aggrieved by the freezing of their bank accounts under section 83(1) of CGST Act. In terms of Section 83(2) of the Act, every provisional attachment order under Section 83(1) shall cease to have effect after the expiry of the period of one year from the date of the order. Thus, the impugned order whereby the bank accounts of the petitioners were attached, ceases to be operative.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offense, evidence, the complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

The petitioner has preferred this petition be aggrieved by the letter whereby the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Mahasamund, rejected the application of the petitioner for releasing of the vehicle Truck on supurdnama. The amended provision of Section 129 of the GST Act, which has come into effect on 1st January, 2022, cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner and has substance. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner for the release of the vehicle is accordingly rejected.

The challenge to the impugned order stating that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing, therefore, cannot be countenanced as the petitioner has given a reply but has failed to appear before the respondent in response to a notice in DRC-01 issued under Rule 100 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Taxes Rules, 2017. There is no merits in the present writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the instant case, the affidavit filed on behalf of the Department reveals that the Applicant has not co-operated with the investigation. He has failed to disclose the e-mail id and the password. He has also failed to hand over the mobile phone, which was registered with the bank. Hence, the mere statement of the Applicant that he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation does not serve any purpose. The nature of the offense necessitates custodial interrogation to facilitate effective investigation and to unearth the fraud in all its facets. This court is not inclined to exercise the discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favor of the Applicant

The refund application of the petitioner is restored and the same be transferred to the Assistant Commissioner (Central Taxes) for appropriate orders to be passed.

The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Respondent in the Show Cause Notice and quash the same as ultra vires to IGST and Articles 19(1)(g) and Article 265 of the Constitution of India. the present writ petition is disposed of.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order whereby the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled. This court finds no ground to entertain the present petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

This Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court, which is correctly appreciated. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned Assessment order. This Court is inclined to allow this writ petition and the impugned order is quashed. Consequently, the respondent is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the Section 161 of the CGST Act.

The dispute in the case in hand of forging of invoice and bill without any transaction of coal and the Court finds that if such a dispute is there, it has been set at rest by reasoned judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in Jayant and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.