In this case, the goods in transit were intercepted and thereafter detention order was passed on the ground that documents shown by the driver of truck relating to the consignment and both the parties were not verified by the competent officer, therefore, it was found that the goods were transported with the intention to evade tax. Once the purchaser is shown as functional / active the authorities ought not to have pass the impugned order confirming the seizure order. The impugned orders are hereby quashed.

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the orders. The petitioner submits that the impugned order was neither communicated, nor served upon the petitioner. As per sub-section (2) of section 169 of the GST Act, the order is deemed to be served only in case the service is effected by tendering or published or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner as provided in sub-section (1). She further submits that the Statute nowhere provides that the order made available on the common portal is deemed to be served and clauses (c) & (d) of sub-section (1) of section 169 of the GST Act are not covered by sub-section (2) of section 169 of the GST Act. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was within limitation but the respondent authority has arbitrarily dismissed the appeal as time barred. The identical issue is engaging the attention of this Court in Writ Tax No. 948 of 2023 and the present writ petition may be taken up along with the same.

Since it is merely a matter of cancellation of registration, the question of limitation should not bother us since it cannot be said that any right has accrued to the State which would rather be adversely affected by cancellation.

This petition, at this stage is being disposed of by giving direction to the respondents to unblock the credit ledger of the petitioner which has been blocked as a period of 3 years has expired on 28.01.2023 after the credit ledger was blocked. However, challenge to the vires of Rule 61 of the Central GST Rules, 2017, and notification dated 10.09.2018 shall remain open.

The petitioner is aggrieved by seizure of cash from his premises. He has a case that he had stopped business years back and is not an assessee whose premises need to be inspected and property subjected to seizure. This court do not think it is proper to interfere at this stage and direct release of the cash, which is primarily a matter which has to be considered by the Authorities concerned. The writ petition is hence disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass orders after hearing the petitioners at the earliest.

Jitendra Kumar Singh, Srijan Pandey for the Petitioner.

This writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit an additional reply to the impugned show cause notice.

Section 50 of the GST Act can be applied demanding interest only in cases of belated cash payment towards GST, but not on input tax credit available all the while with the department to the credit of the assessee.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned summons issued by the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent, being the Central Authority as well as the second respondent, being the State Authority, have simultaneously initiated proceedings under the GST Act against the petitioner in respect of the same subject matter, which is impermissible under law as per the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017. This writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner`s reply to the impugned summons and decide as to whether the subject matter of the proceedings initiated by the second respondent as well as the proposed proceedings of the first respondent under the GST Act 2017 against the petitioner are one and the same.

This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent who shall seek a clarification from the Engineer-in-Chief and then decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of making of such representation

The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice issued by the respondent. Under the impugned notice on account of the alleged mismatch, the respondent has intimated the petitioner about the amount they are liable to pay towards CGST and SGST in respect of tax invoices. this writ petition is disposed of by directing the adjudicating authority to give due consideration submitted by the petitioner and to take a final decision on merits and in accordance with law

As an accused, if the Petitioner is subjected to a threat or coercion by the investigation officer, then the Petitioner would have their legal remedies open. If the Petitioner is entitled to a refund, on any other legal ground, that the Petitioner was not liable to reverse the ITC, then it is open to the Petitioner to apply for reversal/ refund by making a proper application or adopting such proceedings as available.