Writ petition challenging non-release of due amounts under Central GST Act dismissed. Serious violations highlighted.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the non-release of due amounts and attachment proceedings under the Central GST Act. The petitioner's payment was made based on the District Labour Officer's direction, and serious violations were highlighted. Due to the circumstances and legal actions, the court found the petitioner not entitled to relief, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to letter informing non-release of due amount, serious violations under Central GST Act, attachment proceedings initiated, payment made based on District Labour Officer's direction.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenges a letter (Ext.P7) from the 1st respondent informing the petitioner about instructions from the additional 2nd respondent and PF authorities not to release any due amount. The petitioner was given time to settle dues. The additional 2nd respondent highlighted serious violations by A.K.G Memorial Labour Contract Society Limited under the Central GST Act, amounting to approximately 3.67 Crores, collected but not remitted to the Government. Attachment proceedings under Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017 were initiated against the petitioner, who had also filed a separate petition challenging those proceedings (W.P.(C) No.17108/2020).

2. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent confirmed that payment was made for a specific period based on the District Labour Officer's direction. Considering the circumstances, the court concluded that the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in the writ petition and subsequently dismissed the petition.

In summary, the judgment addressed the challenge to the non-release of due amounts, serious violations under the Central GST Act, initiation of attachment proceedings, and payment made based on the District Labour Officer's direction. The court found that given the circumstances and the ongoing legal actions, the petitioner was not entitled to relief in the writ petition, leading to its dismissal.

---