Since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching an 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 an 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.

The origination as well as termination of the goods in question was in State of Madhya Pradesh meaning thereby the authorities are of the view that the goods were not to be unloaded in the State of UP or any intention to avoid tax. However, mainly on the ground of some small technical fault for not carrying the e-way bill, the penalty ought not to have been levied in the absence of any discrepancy in document accompanying the goods.

hese are three petitions in which reliefs claimed are similar, namely in regard to the challenge to the provisional attachment of the Petitioners’ bank accounts exercising powers under Section 83 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This court is of the opinion that in the facts of the case, all such contentions need to be kept open to be agitated by the Petitioners after the decision on the show cause notices in question, as we have already observed that the show cause notices be adjudicated by 15th September 2023.

This Court refrains from entering into the merits of the matter and thus relegates the petitioner to file an appeal before the Competent Authority, which shall first go into the question date of communication of the impugned order to the petitioner and thereafter decide as to whether the appeal is filed within limitation period or not and if it is found that appeal is filed within limitation period, then the same shall be decided on its own merits provided that there is no other legal bar

The limited relief that the petitioner seeks in the present writ petition is for an appropriate direction to the respondents to decide the representation that the petitioner has made for the refund of excess GST that was required to be paid by the petitioner on the change of GST rate on works contract from 12% to 18% w.e.f. 18.07.2022. This writ petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit fresh representation.

The present petition does not survive for consideration. In the event of passing any adverse order against the petitioner by the statutory authority, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court, if he has no alternative remedy.

Merely because by mistake, the assessee paid duties on the goods which are exempted from payment does not mean that the goods would become goods liable for the duty under the Act

The present is a third petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a complaint case under Section 132 of the CGST Act. This Court deems it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

The period of expiry of the e-way bill is very minor i.e. only three hours and the reason for such expiry is supported with relevant documents, The impugned order of the adjudicating authority and the order of the appellate authority are set aside and as a consequence, petitioner will be entitled to get a refund of the penalty and tax in question expeditiously.

The challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned proceedings issued under Rules 22(1) and Sub-Rule (2A) of 21 of CGST Rules. This writ petition is allowed and the impugned show-cause notice is set aside and consequently, the registration of the petitioner is restored with immediate effect.

The Court finds that the basis of filing of the complaint case has already been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court and the matter has been remitted back to the concerned authority to pass afresh order. As the basis of filing the complaint case has already been quashed, to allow the criminal proceeding to continue will amount to the abuse of the process of law. After the fresh assessment in view of the judgment of the Division Bench if the State finds that there is a fresh cause of action the State may move in accordance with the law.