The petitioner has challenged the impugned order rejecting their application seeking refund, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

It is the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority to extend the period of the E-Way Bill up to 8 hours from the time of its expiry. The Adjudicating Authority failed to exercise its discretion. On this score, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside.

The assessment proceedings suffer from serious procedural errors in absence of a proper show-cause notice. The matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to proceed in accordance with law afresh after issuing a proper show cause notice

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order rejecting their application seeking refund, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order rejecting their application seeking refund, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

It is the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority to extend the period of the E-Way Bill up to 8 hours from the time of its expiry. The Adjudicating Authority failed to exercise its discretion. On this score, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside.

The assessment proceedings suffer from serious procedural errors in the absence of a proper show-cause notice. The matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to proceed in accordance with law afresh after issuing a proper show cause notice

The issue pertains to cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper if the entire matter is remanded back to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner and thereafter to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

It was essential for the concerned authorities to examine the information as submitted by the petitioner and process its claim for refund in accordance with law. The petitioner cannot be penalized for the inadvertent error in submitting erroneous information which has since been rectified.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 05.10.2021 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) whereby the petitioner’s bank accounts were attached. The petitioner had also sought directions for the expeditious disposal of its appeal.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent rejecting the revised claims made by the petitioner on 24.01.2021, 27.01.2021 and 07.02.2021.

1. Heard Shri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.