The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kahamgaon suffers from non application of the provisions of law and ultimately the non-application of mind to the issue involved in the matter. Therefore, this order is required to be set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge by restoring the revision application for the purpose of deciding it afresh, in accordance with law

The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences. We also find the authorities not to have adjudicated the matter on the attending facts and circumstances. All issues of fact and law ought to have been dealt with, even if the proceedings were to be ex parte in nature

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for order or direction on the respondent to pay the liability of GST incurred on works contract executed and completed after 1st July, 2017 wherein the contracts were awarded in the pre-GST regime or post-GST regime and therefore it was impossible on part of the petitioners as well as the respondent to include the component of GST in the value of contract awarded prior to GST legislation coming into force or post GST contracts, ongoing projects in the period of 2017-2018 and the petitioners are also challenging the impugned summary of show cause notice. This writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate representations

The petitioners have challenged Rule 31A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 as ultra vires the Constitution of India. It is the petitioners’ case that they had been corresponding with the concerned authorities regarding the difficulties faced by them in determining the value of supply made by them particularly after the insertion of Rule 31A. However, the issuance of the show cause notice has compelled the petitioners to approach this court challenging the vires of Rule 31A. List on 05.12.2023.

Seeks to amend Notification No 01/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Seeks to amend Notification No 02/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

The provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the MGST Act, do not attract in the facts of the present case. As the attachment of the property of the petitioners is concerned, the petitioners have a remedy of invoking Rule 159(5) of the MGST Rules. Thus, such a remedy being available to the petitioners, it would be premature for the petitioners to raise any such contention in the present proceedings.

The challenge in these petitions is to the vires of Rule 31A of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Petitioners have also challenged the show cause notice dated 27.09.2023, which according to the Petitioners is based mainly on Rule 31A of the CGST Rules, 2017. There is also a challenge to Section 15(5) of the CGST Act and to certain Notifications and Circulars issued under the CGST Act and Rules made thereunder. After the pleadings are complete, place these matters for final disposal on 05.02.2024.

The case of the petitioner as made out in this petition regarding the breakdown of the vehicle in question and the generation of new e-way bill in respect of the same goods in question within three minutes after the interception of the vehicle in question by the respondents, has not been properly considered by the Appellate Authority for rejection and dismissal of the appeal on this ground is too much technical in this case as appears to this court from the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority concerned to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law.

A present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent whereby the Appeal filed against the cancellation of registration has been dismissed with further direction to revoke the GST registration of the petitioner. The non-submission of reply to the show cause cannot be a ground for cancellation of the registration.

The issue that arises for consideration is whether this Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is empowered to condone the delay beyond the maximum time limit stipulated under Section 107 of the GST Act. This court refer the matter to a Division Bench of this Court.

The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was adhered to by the respondents or not. Having passed the impugned order beyond the period of seven days from the date of service of notice on the petitioner which is contrary to Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, the impugned orders have to be necessarily quashed and the writ petitions will have to be allowed.