The petitioner is at liberty to avail alternative statutory remedy available under Section 107 of the 2017 Act.

The respondents proposed to cancel the petitioner’s registration on the assumption that he was non-existent at his principal place of business, This Court considers it apposite to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the concerned officer to consider afresh after affording the petitioner a full opportunity to be heard

The provisions of Section 83 of the CGST Act can be invoked for attaching the assets and bank accounts of a taxable person or a person specified under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act if in the opinion of the Commissioner, it is necessary to do so for the purpose of protecting the interest of government revenue. Thus, the bank accounts of ZIPL cannot be attached to secure the revenue of another taxable person.

The composite supply of services by way of milling of food grains into flour (atta) to Food & Supplies Department, Govt. of West Bengal for distribution of such flour under the Public Distribution System is eligible for exemption under serial no. 3A of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended, since the value of goods involved in such composite supply does not exceed 25% of the value of supply. In case the value of goods involved in such composite supply exceeds 25% of the value of supply, the supply shall attract tax @ 5% vide entry serial No. 26 of the Notification No. 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

he present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.12.2020 passed by respondent no. 2 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner, order dated 19.03.2021 passed by respondent no. 2 rejecting the petitioner`s revocation application for cancellation of the registration as well as the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the respondent no. 1 confirming the rejection of the revocation application of the petitioner.*

The petitioner claimed a refund of ITC on Zero-rated supplies. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim on the basis that the petitioner was merely facilitating and arranging services and thus, qualified as an intermediary within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the IGST Act.

We find no basis for the Appellate Authority to have concluded that the petitioner acts as a mediator between joint ventures/ franchisees and McDonald’s USA. The Appellate Authority has not considered that the MLA, which entitles the petitioner to enter into sub-licenses with franchisees, is a separate agreement. Further, certain observations made in the impugned order also indicate that the Appellate Authority has proceeded on the basis that providing services on behalf of another party amounts to acting as an intermediary.

By this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order (involving interpretation of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act) passed by the respondent authority concerned under the CGST Act. List this matter for final hearing in the monthly list of August 2023

The claim of Input Tax Credit and the computation thereon ought to have been agitated before the appellate authority. Having not availed the statutory remedies available, the petitioner cannot seek to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge an assessment order, especially with respect to the computation of the turnover and the determination of the taxable turnover and the tax payable, as arrived at by the Assessing Officer.

The articles in question shall be released subject to the respondent furnishing requisite undertaking as may be required and also a specific statement by the respondent to the effect that he would not dispute the factum of recovery of said articles from his vehicles.

It is evident that the Writ Court took note of the fact that the order impugned therein is subject to a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act and also noticed that Section 129 of the CGST Act enables the appellant to seek provisional release of goods subject to fulfillment of conditions specified therein. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is dismissed by affirming the order passed by the Writ Court

The dispute raised before this Court that the search and seizure authority having passed the order has exceeded its jurisdiction is rejected. Rather the authority has acted within the competency to pass such order. Therefore, the contention raised that he cannot be a judge of his own cause, that principle is not applicable to the present case.