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.

Thee goods manufactured by respondent under Tariff Heading 85.47 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the other hand, according to the petitioner, the goods fall under Heading 39.19 of the same Schedule. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, therefore, gave notice to the respondent to show cause why the product should not be classified under Heading 39.19.

The exercise of the power for ordering a provisional attachment must be preceded by the formation of an opinion by the Commissioner that it is necessary so to do for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue

Though the appellants have been protected from 26 October 2021, there is no grievance made about any misuse made by them of the liberty granted in their favor. The only submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is that pursuant to the summons issued, the appellants are not producing the relevant documents. The appellants are bound to produce the relevant documents in their custody.

This Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court, which is correctly appreciated. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.

The Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed.

The challenge in this appeal has been made to the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat granting bail to the appellant subject to certain conditions. The condition directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.1.5 crores within 12 weeks from the date of his actual release is not liable to be sustained and is hereby set aside

Mere production of the invoices and/or payment by cheque is not sufficient and cannot be said to be proving the burden as per section 70 of the Act, 2003. Both, the second Appellate Authority as well as the High Court have materially erred in allowing the ITC despite the concerned purchasing dealers' failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and failed to discharge the burden of proof as per section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court and the second Appellate Authority allowing the ITC is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The orders passed by the Assessing Officer denying the ITC to the concerned purchasing dealers, confirmed by the first Appellate Authority are hereby restored

This Court is unable to accept that the petitioner can set off its obligation to make a pre-deposit against its claim for the refund of CENVAT credit. If the petitioner deposits an amount equivalent to 2.5% of its liability, the petitioner’s appeal against the order in original would not be rejected solely for want of the requisite pre-deposit.

This court is of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail without imposing any condition as suggested by Learned Additional Solicitor General.

The condition directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores is not liable to be sustained and is hereby set aside.

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.