Issuance of notices for recovery of the input tax credit availed by the recipient is not justified without conducting any enquiry on the supplier.

The substantive prayer as made in the petitions is a challenge to the Constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 17(5)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Disposed of as withdrawn.

The substantive prayer as made in the petitions is a challenge to the Constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act. A similar issue is pending consideration of the Supreme Court as informed at the Bar. Considering the complexion of the present proceedings, the present petition can be permitted to be withdrawn.

The court is inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal by directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law.

This Court is inclined to hold that the matter be remanded to the appellate authority for revisiting the same upon consideration of the submission which may be made on behalf of both the parties before the authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the appeal upon affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the interested persons including the petitioner, and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, impugning a communication issued under Section 83 of CGST Act. No order under Section 83 of the CGST Act operating against the petitioner and the communications issued to various suppliers have been withdrawn.

This court directed the respondents to sanction the petitioner the refund amount with an appropriate interest in terms of Section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017.

The impugned Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is quashed and set aside. The Assistant Commissioner had refused to decide the matter on remand being directed by the Additional Commissioner because of the perception of the Assistant Commissioner that the Additional Commissioner passed an erroneous order. This Court does not see any prima facie reason to hold that the Assistant Commissioner has acted in accordance with the law.

This court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order impugned in this petition.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a communication. This court set aside the impugned communication to the extent that it seeks to place a debit freeze on the petitioner’s account. The respondents are required to act in accordance with the statutory provisions.

In view of this court, no useful purpose would be served to keep the petitioner in further preventive custody. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail

Considering the fact the impugned order has been passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing although the petitioner filed a reply within the stipulated time, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent.