The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition is that for release of goods. In any case, once from the facts on record, which have gone undisputed, the petitioner, who is consignor in the invoice and e-Way Bill, claims himself to be the owner of the goods, the provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act could not be invoked for imposing penalty.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, that directions be issued to respondents to disburse the amount of refund granted to the petitioner in terms of the order-in-appeal dated 19.06.2023. The petitioner’s claim was denied principally on the ground that the petitioner’s turnover for the relevant period as less than the refund claimed and that the petitioner had availed an excess ITC. The respondents are directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s claim for refund along with applicable interest, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from today.

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking multifarious reliefs. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The Court is of the opinion that since order is being passed due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondent- Authorities, the petitioner would be required to present/file his appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional and the President or the State President may enter office. Case referred/cited :-

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a Show Cause Notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why its registration should not be cancelled. The impugned order does not reflect any reason for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. It merely states that the tax payer had not given any response to the impugned SCN. The SCN, as stated above, was incapable of eliciting any meaningful response. The impugned SCN and the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration are set aside. The petitioner’s GST registration shall be restored forthwith.

The petitioner’s apprehension that he would be coerced to deposit the further amount can be addressed by directing the respondents not to accept any amount of tax from the petitioner since the petitioner has unequivocally made clear that he does not wish to voluntarily deposit any tax with the concerned authority and there is no dispute that the petitioner cannot be compelled to deposit the tax without following the procedure under Section 73, 74 and 79 of the CGST Act.

The proceedings under Section 74 was initiated and a notice was issued on the ground that Rohit Coal Traders (one of the suppliers) was not found to be in existence and meaning thereby the purchases shown by the petitioner are bogus. If the seller i.e. Rohit Coal Trader was found non- existence, the proceeding can be initiated but the authorities has failed to consider the fact that GSTR returns as prescribed under the Act was filed by the seller to which not a single word has been whispered while passing the impugned order. The impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remanded to the first appellate authority, who shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Rectification of typographical error appeared in the order.

If the tax invoice along with E-way bill are produced before passing the seizure as well as detention order, the proceedings is not justified. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remanded to the first appellate authority, who shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an identical issue is engaging the attention of this Court in 019 (Allahabad) in which this Court on 11.5.2023 has passed the following order:-

Second supplementary affidavit is filed and it is taken on record today.

The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition is that for release of goods. In any case, once from the facts on record, which have gone undisputed, the petitioner, who is consignor in the invoice and e-Way Bill, claims himself to be the owner of the goods, the provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act could not be invoked for imposing penalty.

he writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The orders to the extent of rejecting the refund of CGST & IGST and the appellate order are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to follow the provisions of Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.