The petitioner has filed the present petition, praying that the respondents be directed to revoke the cancellation of petitioner’s GST registration. Respondent states on instructions that the petitioner’s application for revocation of the order cancelling its GST registration would be processed. The petitioner is also aggrieved by orders passed under Section 83 of CGST Act. In terms of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, any order passed under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act would be inoperative after expiry of a period of one year from the date of the said order. This court consider it apposite to direct the concerned banks not to interdict the operation of the bank accounts on the basis of the orders passed under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent. This Court feels that the time period of 2 days is not sufficient to make the payment of demanded amount by the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant a period of 3 months time to the petitioner for payment of balance amount demanded by the respondent towards interest.

Supplies made to a Polytechnic could not be considered as supplies to an educational institution. The demand was founded on the basis that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the communication informing the petitioner regarding deficiencies in its application for refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit. The petitioner assails the impugned communication, essentially, on two grounds. First, that the officer issuing the impugned communication is not authorized or competent to do so. And second, that there is no deficiency in the refund application preferred by the petitioner. This court directs the concerned officer to issue the acknowledgment in terms of Rule 90 of the CGST Rules and process the petitioner’s application for refund in accordance with the law

In present case, the petitioner is in custody since 01.08.2022, charge-sheet has been filed on 30.09.2022 and he has already deposited about 10 per cent of the amount of alleged evaded tax duty. In view thereof; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Issue notice to the respondents and calling upon them to show cause within a month as to why the physical verification has not been completed within time allowed and why any final order of seizure has not been passed and the goods are being detained. List on 06.02.2023.

After hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence on record this instant writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner herein to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondents.

The Appellate Authority since has the power to extend the time to file an appeal, the petitioners, for the ends of justice, are entitled to get an opportunity to pray for such extension.

Writ petitioner has challenged an order making certain tax demands which provides for service by making available the order in the common portal. The lone point that is canvassed by the writ petitioner is, the impugned order has not been served on the writ petitioner by resorting to the method of service set out in Section 169 (1)(b) of TNG& ST Act. If the writ petitioner is able to satisfy the Appellate Authority qua limitation and pre-deposit, it is open to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law. There is no ground to interfere qua impugned order in the captioned writ petition.

In the present case, as the goods were intercepted by the mobile squad on 13.03.2018, the recommendation of the GST Council is applicable and there is no requirement for e-way bill till 31.03.2018. Writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.

The order impugned is appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

This order is passed on the ground that the petitioner had not declared its godown as an additional place of business. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside since, the same was not issued on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the same is set aside