This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the penalty order passed by the respondent. This court is of the view that the orders impugned in this writ petition are not sustainable in law wherein the authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction and have not acted in accordance with the provisions of the statutes. Accordingly, the order are quashed and set-aside.

This court is of the view that the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order in original and the appellate order are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to file its reply to the show cause notice within three weeks and the adjudicating authority is directed to proceed de novo and pass order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. With these directions, the writ petition is allowed.

If there are two SEZ units within same state, whether two registrations are required to be obtained?

When is registration in other state required? Will giving service from Nasik to other state require registration in other state?

How would the sale and purchase of goods to and from SEZ will be treated? Will it be export / input?

During the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 the requirement of e-way bill under U.P. GST Act read with Rules framed thereunder was unenforceable. Therefore, neither seizure of goods was justified nor can the penalty be sustained. The impugned orders are quashed. Any amount deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded in accordance with law

The present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent for release of the vehicle and the 1st respondent will take a decision for release of the vehicle on furnishing bond and sureties, in accordance with the law.

During the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 the requirement of e-way bill under U.P. GST Act read with Rules framed thereunder was unenforceable. Therefore, neither seizure of goods was justified nor can the penalty be sustained. The impugned order is quashed. Any amount deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded in accordance with law within a period of one month

This court does not find any merits in the present writ petition. The writ petition fails and accordingly stands rejected.

- From a perusal of Sub-section (5) of Section 140 of the CGST Act, it is evident that beyond the period of thirty days, an assessee can claim the transitional credit of input tax within another thirty days only on production of an order passed by the Commissioner. In other words, unless the order is passed by the Commissioner extending the limitation period, an assessee cannot claim the input tax credit in respect of the inward supply taken before 1/07/2017. The appellant filed the application for extending the time of limitation, claiming transitional credit only after five years. The Commissioner, therefore, rightly rejected the application. As the Commissioner did not extend the limitation period, the appellant cannot claim the benefit of transitional credit regarding input tax. The writ appeal accordingly stands dismissed.

Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. K. Phukan, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent no. 1; Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CGST for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4; and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance and Taxation Department [SGST] for the respondent nos. 5 & 6.

2. The applicant has filed the application seeking bail in connection with Case No. DGGI/INTL/1082/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1) (i) read with Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (the CGST Act, 2017 ).