The petitioner has challenged the impugned attachment notice under which the respondent has proposed to attach the bank account of the petitioner under Section 79 of the CGST Act on the ground that they have not paid the tax and penalty amount as stipulated under the summary of the order in Form GST-DRC-07. The impugned assessment order and the consequential recovery notice are hereby quashed and the matters are remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This Court while dealing with the anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case specifically regarding the amount alleged to have been wrongly availed as the same lies within the domain of the trial Court to decide on the basis of the evidence to be led by the respective parties.

A present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent whereby GST registration of the petitioner has been canceled. The non-submission of a reply to the show cause cannot be a ground for cancellation of the registration.

This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. On taking into consideration the serious nature of the offense and the fact that the investigation of the Department is still going on, the application stands dismissed.

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. Impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the GST Act.

The petitioner shall be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

There is no justification for keeping this matter pending before this Court any further. Therefore, with the consent of both the sides, this writ petition is being disposed of by directing the respondents to restore the GST registration of the petitioner immediately on filing the return along with the deposit of statutory dues by the petitioner, in accordance with the Rules.

This petition is disposed of by giving direction to the competent authority that in case, the petitioner deposits the bank guarantee of Rs.6,09,296/-, the goods in question be released provisionally.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order whereby, the petitioner’s appeal against an order cancelling its GST registration was rejected. This court directed the respondents to restore the registration to enable the petitioner to file all returns and pay taxes, interest, and penalties, if any, in accordance with law.

Petitioner was denied a valuable right of filing his submission in response to the intimation in Form GST DRC-01A. Thus, a limited interference is called for in the matter. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Competent Authority. Petitioner may file his reply to the intimation in Form GST DRC-01A.

Since the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing this writ petition without exercising the statutory appellate remedy available to them under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the statutory appellate authority if aggrieved by the impugned order-in-original.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order whereby the respondent has rejected the refund claim of the Petitioner primarily on the ground that the refund claim is beyond the period of two years as prescribed under section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. This court set aside the impugned order and restored the refund claim of the Petitioner to file of the Assistant Commissioner, who will examine the case of the Petitioner on the basis of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition.