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.

Since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching the 2nd appellate tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, the amount of penalty and interest demanded by an authority shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition subject to the Petitioner depositing the entire amount of tax demanded within a period of fifteen days from today.

Petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed in appeal dated 27.10.2021 by respondent no. 3, declining the refund of tax claimed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner belatedly applied for it.

The present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to pay the interest on the amount of Rs. 68,37,488/- from 01.11.2021 till 27.04.2023 at the rate of 6% per annum as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, before 31.05.2023.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the 1st appellate order by which said authority has not admitted the appeal preferred by the petitioner, as the same is in contravention to sub-sections (1) & (4) of Section 107 of the GST Act. Since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching the 2nd appellate tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, as an interim measure subject to the Petitioner depositing the entire tax demand within a period of fifteen days from today, the rest of the demand shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition.

Since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching 2nd appellate tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, as an interim measure subject to verification of deposit being made as stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the rest of the demand shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition.

In the facts of the case, we find that the petitioner has a remedy of preferring appeal which has not been availed. We therefore, permit the petitioner to prefer such appeal within two weeks from today and in the event such an appeal is filed, the same shall be entertained without raising any objection with regard to limitation.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to the respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 19,89,96,660/- which the petitioner claims was illegally recovered under coercion

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following substantive relief

The Hon’ble High Court restrained the authorities from initiating any coercive steps for recovery till the disposal of the writ petition. The condition imposed by the learned Single Bench directing deposit of 20% of the disputed tax is set aside. The time for filing affidavit-in opposition by the respondent is extended by three weeks

The writ petitions, as well as these appeals, are disposed of by directing the appellant to treat the orders under Section 74(9) of the W.B.G.S.T. Act, 2017, which were impugned in the writ petitions as the show-cause notice and the appellant is directed to file his objections to the notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of server copy of this judgment and order. On receipt of the objections/replies, the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Bardhaman Charge shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant or his authorized representative and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance in law

The petitioner is given liberty to move an application under Section 129(1) of the GST Act, seeking for provisional release of the goods and the vehicle, which have been detained.