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.

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.