The Hon’ble High Court by way of interim relief, directed that the goods of the petitioner as well as the vehicle shall be released provided the petitioner complies with certain conditions

This Court is not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail to the accused petitioners.

The controversy between the parties primarily revolves around the liability to pay GST which is yet not crystallized. It would be expedient to dispose of the appeal by putting terms on the basis of the undertaking furnished by the Plaintiff as to payment of GST

The petitioner may approach the competent authority to avail the benefit of Notification No. 03/2023 - Central Tax and seek revocation of the cancellation of registration.

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 four weeks from the today, the rest of the demand shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition.

Since the order of cancellation, in this case, is 14.09.2022, the scheme of Amnesty for all assessees in whose cases registration was* canceled prior to 31.12.2022 will be applicable to the petitioner subject to satisfaction of all conditions set out thereunder.

In view of the fact that the goods have been auctioned by authority, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in such circumstances of the case, conveyance may be released and the petitioner is ready and willing to give sufficient amount of bond for the remaining amount of fine in lieu of conveyance.

The petitioner may be permitted to approach the appellate authority before whom all conditions for entertaining the appeal such as pre-deposit would be applicable. If an appeal is filed within a period of one week from today, it shall be entertained without reference to limitation but ensuring compliance with all other requirements including pre-deposit.

Considering the nature of the power, as we have referred to above, the order should be self-speaking. It cannot be that the Authority passes an order without reasons, and then arguments are advanced in a writ jurisdiction at the first instance.

The Hon’ble High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file the appeal against the aforesaid impugned order before the appellate authority in accordance with law, within 30 days and if such appeal is filed, the same shall be considered on merit without raising the issue of limitation.

The implications of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not considered while calculating the limitation period. The appropriate course of action therefore would be to set aside the impugned order, restore the appeal filed by the Petitioner in respect of the refund which has not been granted, and direct the Appellate Authority to examine the aspect of limitation on merits afresh in the light of the decision/order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu Writ Petition.

These three writ petitions relate to the periods 2017 – 2018, 2018 – 2019, and 2019 – 2020 and the challenge is to orders of assessment passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Taxes Act, 2017, as well as memo dated 26.02.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax) holding the appeals filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid orders of assessment as non-maintainable and filed beyond the period of limitation