ORDER :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. Issue Notice, returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the action of the respondent authority on the ground that the same is violative of principle of natural justice.

3. According to the petitioner, who is having his principal place of business at Ahmedabad and having GST Registration being engaged in the business of trading of Cotton Bales, Cotton Yarn, Cotton Seed Oil Cake, etc. received a show cause notice under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax/Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act (‘the CGST Act’ and GGST Act’ hereinafter) along with summary thereof in the Form GST DRC-01 on 13.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.3.

3.1 It was alleged that the petitioner was supplied nil rated or exempted supply, but he had not reversed the ITC related to the said exempt supply as per Section 17(2) of the CGST Act read with Rule 42 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 and Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (‘the CGST/GGST Rules’ hereinafter). The demand was made of Rs.36,15,696/- with interest at the rate of 24%p.a.

3.2 The petitioner submitted a reply on 26.01.2022 in Form GST DRC-06 wherein he requested to grant the adjournment of 30 days to submit a detailed reply in response to the show cause notice.

3.3 The adjournment was granted by the respondent No.3 of 15 days and asked the petitioner to reply on or before 11.02.2022. The petitioner could not file the reply in response to the said show cause notice. According to him, because on account of last date to file GST return in Form GSTR-1 for the month of January 2022, he was handicapped.

3.4 The search proceedings under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act at the registered premise of the petitioner took place on 17.02.2022, the summons had been issued and on 19.02.2022, the petitioner’s statement had been recorded. On 21.02.2022, the petitioner reversed the ITC accounting to Rs.1,19,149/- along with the interest pertaining to the year 2017-18 to 2020-21.

3.5 The petitioner thought that the issue was resolved as the officer of the GGST has issued show cause notice and another officer of the said department initiated the search proceedings as he had reversed the tax along with the interest and penalty. According to him, it is only in the month of June, when the recovery had come and the respondent had debited the electronic credit ledger against the demand raised vide its order dated 21.02.2022, he came to know of this. Notice was also issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act, the Manager of the Bank was asked to pay the amount of Rs.13,74,981/- on behalf of the petitioner. He freezed the debit transactions from the Bank account. The petitioner, therefore, is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“23.

(a) To issue writ of or in the nature of a mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order u/s.73 of the CGST Act issued by the respondent No.3 with a direction to adjudicate the matter afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing; or Alternatively To issue writ of or in the nature of a mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.6 to admit the appeal and hear the same on merits and pass the judicious order in stipulated time.

(b) To issue writ of or in the nature of a mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to re-credit the amount recovered illegally from Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner;

(c) To issue writ of or in the nature of a mandamus or any other appropriate writ,order or direction directing the respondent No.5 to inform the Banks to remove the lien over the amount of the petitioner and let the petitioner operate its Bank account;

(d) to issue order(s),direction(s), writ(s) or any other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems