The applicant needs to be confronted with various documents and statements of the witnesses, and the allegations levelled against him are serious, being in the nature of forgery and GST evasion by creating false invoices issued by non-existent entities, no grounds for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant are made out. Accordingly, the present bail application along with all pending applications is dismissed.

It is seen that more than one year has already elapsed since the date of the letter and therefore, in terms of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, the said order has ceased to operate.

The present petition for grant of anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

Surely, if there is an inadvertent or typographical error that has crept in any returns, the taxpayer cannot be mulcted with the tax liability in excess of what is due and payable. It is apparent that the explanation provided by the petitioner has not been considered.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a show cause notice dated 09.06.2022 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why its GST registration should not be canceled. The petitioner also impugns an order dated 23.08.2022 passed pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice canceling the petitioner’s GST registration as well as the Order-in-Appeal dated 19.04.2023, whereby the petitioner’s appeal against the impugned order dated 23.08.2022 was rejected.

A challenge has been raised to the order passed under Section 73(8) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the tax period 2018-19. The writ petition is disposed of with the observation, that in case the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 75,000/- before the adjudicating authority-respondent the impugned order shall stand set aside.

This Court considers it apposite to direct that the concerned banks shall not obstruct the operation of the bank accounts on account of the provisional attachment orders dated 20.04.2022.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file a fresh petition with adequate pleadings and proper relief.

A challenge has been raised to the adjudication order. The matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with the law, necessarily involving adequate opportunity of hearing is granted to the petitioner, both for the purpose of filing written reply as also of personal hearing

A search was conducted at the premises of the petitioner on 16.02.2022. The petitioner claims that the search was conducted in a high-handed manner and during the search operations, the petitioner was forced to make a deposit of Rs.1,15,00,000/- under threat and coercion

Hon`ble High Court considers it apposite to dispose of this petition by directing that if the petitioner furnishes the requisite documents within a period of a further four weeks from today, the refund of IGST will be processed.

The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned SCN and clarified that the respondents are not precluded from issuing an appropriate SCN, setting out the reasons for proposing any adverse action against the petitioner. The order suspending the petitioner’s GST registration also stands quashed.