There is no scope of passing any interim order in the matter and the issue involved in this writ petition requires an affidavit from the respondent for final adjudication. List this matter for final hearing in the monthly list of May 2023.

The petitioner’s grievance against Rule 90 and Circular No. 125/44/2019 does not survive, therefore, this court does not consider it apposite to examine the same in this petition.

The bail application of the accused/applicant stands dismissed.

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the respondent canceling the GST registration of the petitioner as well as the order passed by the respondent rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirming the order of respondent. This court set aside the order of the respondent and remanded the matter back to the respondent.

When the High Court, at the outset, stated that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy, it ought not to have proceeded to make observations on the merits of the case and thereafter, state that the petitioner would not be precluded from pursuing alternative remedies. SC disposed of this special leave petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy if so advised.

By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107 of the GST Act was dismissed as being beyond limitation. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the respondent whereby a demand has been created under Section 74 of the GST Act. The matter is remanded to respondent to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing and after permitting the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice, in accordance with law

A challenge has been raised to the order whereby demand has been raised against the present petitioner. The present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.

The grievance of the petitioner is against the action of the respondents in seeking road permit for transporting goods/forest products after obtaining e-way bills. The petitioner contends that in spite of having e-way bills, the respondents were demanding road permit which, according to the petitioner, is wholly illegal and unsustainable in law. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is made out a case for interference and it is directed that if the petitioner is in possession of valid e-way bills, road permit should not be insisted upon it, however the petitioner is required to fulfill the other formalities in case, if the situation arises.

The only issue that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether an Appeal can be entertained as per the provisions of Rule 108 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 even if the assessee has not submitted a certified copy of the order within a period of seven days as stipulated under Rule 108(3) of the aforementioned Rules. This Court is of the considered view that the direction sought for by the petitioner in these writ petitions has to be granted, i.e., to direct the respondents to accept the certified copy of the impugned order submitted by the petitioner and thereafter process the Appeal filed under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act if it is otherwise in order and entertain the said Appeal thereafter and decide the same, on merits and in accordance with law.

The impugned order indicates that the petitioner’s application for a refund was rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of two years. The impugned orders cannot be sustained as the benefit of the relaxation in the period of limitation has not been accorded to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to process the petitioner’s application for refund in accordance with law.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned Summons on the ground that both the Central and State Authorities do not have powers to initiate proceedings against the petitioner simultaneously under the respective GST Acts with regard to the same subject matter. This Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to appear before the respondent.

The only issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the respondent was right in rejecting the petitioner`s request under Section 140(1) of the GST Act, 2017 for carrying forward the accumulated credit under the TNVAT Act in respect of TDS. The impugned order is hereby quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to transition TDS under the TNVAT Act in terms of Section 140 of the TNGST Act, 2017.