This Court is of the view that considering the gravity and the magnitude of the allegations involved in the present case and also the apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that in case the petitioner is released on bail, then he may threaten the witnesses, this Court does not deem it fit and proper to grant bail to the petitioner. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

The petitioner admits that the vehicle in which the goods stood transferred for being transported allegedly to the pre-recorded destination, did not have an e-way bill. The Court is convinced that the provision of Section 129 will be attracted in such a situation and has been rightly invoked by the authority. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Since the Petitioners are not pressing the petitions and seeking only the extension of the protective measures, this court have to consider this request

The Court is of the opinion that since the 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. Impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the GST Act.

As an interim measure, this court considers it apposite to suspend the order of attachment of the petitioner’s bank account in question and direct that the petitioner be permitted to operate the same subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- with the Registry of this Court.

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. Impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the GST Act.

The petitioner ICFAI University Sikkim is aggrieved by a communication issued by the Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise. This impugned communication referred to an application for the rectification of mistake. The impugned communication passed by the Joint Commissioner is set aside and the Commissioner, CGST, Siliguri Commissionerate is directed to take on board the application for rectification of the mistake filed by the petitioner, consider the same and dispose of it by a written order

The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner’s GSTIN registration.

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the assessment order passed in respect of the assessment year 2017-18 under the GST Act 2017. The petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment order on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not granted a personal hearing in the impugned assessment proceedings. The impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration, on merits and in accordance with law.

By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased That this Hon’ble court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ and also direct the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Department, Surat to release the property seized by them. This court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all the contentions of both sides are kept open to be raised before the appropriate forum where the petitioners are persuading the litigation in respect of the action taken by the respondents under the provisions of GST.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order whereby, the petitioner’s application for revocation of the cancellation of his GST registration, was rejected. The petitioner’s application for revocation of cancellation of the GST registration was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not replied to the show cause notice within the time specified therein. The impugned orders and the orders cancelling the petitioner’s registration are set aside.

The impugned order of cancellation of registration is quashed and set aside with a liberty to the respondent to issue a fresh notice with detailed reasons for cancellation, if any recorded by the respondent authorities