The issue pertains to cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper if the entire matter is remanded back to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

For balancing the equities, therefore, the Court is of the opinion that since order is being passed due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondent-Authorities, the petitioner would be required to present/file his appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional and the President or the State President may enter office.

The petitioner’s refund application was, essentially, rejected not on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to any refund, but on the ground that the periods for which the refund was claimed did not correspond to the periods for which the returns were filed. This court considers it apposite to allow the present petition and direct the respondents to forthwith process the petitioner’s claim for refund.

Seeks to notify the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2023

Seeks to notify supply of online money gaming, supply of online gaming other than online money gaming and supply of actionable claims in casinos under section 15(5) of CGST Act

Seeks to amend Notification No. 66/2017-Central Tax dated 15.11.2017 to exclude specified actionable claims

Seeks to make amendments (Third Amendment, 2023) to the CGST Rules, 2017 in supersession of Notification No. 45/2023 dated 06.09.2023

The present writ petition is devoid of merits and it is dismissed as such. If there is any dispute regarding refund of the amount as claimed by the petitioner, the petitioner could raise its grievance before the Arbitrator as per Clause 34 of the agreement

The present case is considered to be a fit one in which the petitioner be directed to be released on regular bail.

The writ petition has been filed is aggrieved by a show-cause notice issued under Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act by respondent relating to the tax period October 2021- March 2022. Since the notice is merely a show-cause notice issued under Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, the petition is disposed of by requiring the petitioner to participate in the proceedings and may file objections to the same within two weeks from today.

In the instant case, the goods in question were sold by the registered dealer along with genuine documents i.e. tax invoices and e-way bills. At the time of interception it is alleged that driver of the vehicle made statement that goods were to be unloaded at the place which is not mentioned in the tax invoice. Under the GST Act, there is no specific provision which bounds the selling dealer to disclose the route to be taken during transportation of goods or while goods are in transit. This Court opined that the authorities were not correct in passing the seizure order even if the vehicle was not on regular route or on different route. Once the documents accompanying the goods were found to be genuine the goods ought not to be have been seized.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order passed by respondent whereby goods has been detained on the ground that GSTIN NO. 09BUYPD2872C2ZD was not found on the website and same has been cancelled by the department, therefore the goods have been transported by the petitioner with intention to evade the tax. If the petitioner is in compounding, the benefit of input tax credit cannot be availed, hence there cannot be any evasion of tax, if the registration of the petitioner was cancelled on 30.11.2018, the generation of e-way bill, which has not been disputed to be genuine, the seizure cannot be made. In view of above, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed.