Intention to evade payment of tax’ is an essential ingredient, for initiating proceedings against a person under Section 130 of the CGST Act. In the present case, the petitioner had tried to reuse the e-way bills and the tax invoices, as such the intention to evade the payment of tax is impliedly proved on record. Hence, the order passed by the Proper Officer under Section 129 as well as under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with the provisions of IGST Act, 2017 is legal and valid and has been rightly upheld by the appellate authority

The provisions under Sections 129 and 130 are independent provisions and there is no requirement in law that the proceedings under Section 130 should be preceded by the proceedings under section 129.

In the present case, there is no proceeding of scrutiny or appeal pending and there cannot be any revision of the input tax credit since the allegation of excess claim has been admitted and differential amount paid by the assessee.

The writ petition is filed to direct the first respondent to pass a release order in Form GST MOV-05 and return the retained goods.

Merely making the bald statement that the registration was obtained by fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts without alluding to any such misstatement or the allegedly suppressed facts, provides no clue to the noticee as to the allegation against him.

It is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

Rule 108 prescribes that the appeal has to be filed electronically, but it nowhere prescribes that the same is to be filed only after the impugned order is uploaded on the GSTN Portal. Accordingly, the limitation period to file an appeal will start from the date of service of the manual order

f the department is of the opinion that the registration of the Petitioner needs to be cancelled, it ought to follow the proper procedure in law by issuing fresh show cause notice and granting an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law

The petitioner’s only case is that as its GST registration was canceled by order, the petitioner was under the impression that it has no liability to the respondents. This contention is untenable in view of the alternative modes of service provided under Sec.169 (1) of the CGST Act. The writ petition is meritless and is consequentially dismissed

Having regard to sub-section (4) of Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, there was a delay in approaching the appellate authority therefore, the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition.

The case of the petitioner is that blocking of the Input Tax Credit is incorrect as the petitioner is being denied the utilization of input tax credit availed on the purchases made from various buyers for discharging tax liability. The respondents are directed to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 73 or 74 of the Act as the case may be to recover the ineligible input tax credit availed by the petitioner.

The case of the petitioner is that blocking of the Input Tax Credit is incorrect as the petitioner is being denied the utilization of input tax credit availed on the purchases made from various buyers for discharging tax liability. The respondents are directed to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 73 or 74 of the Act as the case may be to recover the ineligible input tax credit availed by the petitioner.