Considering the overall scenario and without commenting on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondent to accept the physical copy of the appeal and to condone the delay and consequently, to pass appropriate orders in the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a small-time trader, who wishes to challenge the order passed by the respondent. The Court is therefore inclined to allow this writ petition by directing the respondent to number the appeal subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- over and above, the amount already deposited by the petitioner towards pre-deposit.

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the order passed by the respondent whereby the penalty under section 129 (1)(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 was imposed upon the petitioner firm. Since the remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Act, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order passed by the respondent. This court set aside the impugned order and directed the concerned officer to consider the petitioner’s response and pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner a due opportunity to be heard.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondents pursuant to the sealing of the property. This Writ Petition is disposed at the time of admission stage itself, by directing the respondents to cause inspection of the property immediately, in the presence of the petitioner and de-seal the property.

The present writ petition is disposed of by directing the fourth respondent to process the Refund claims as also the Duty Drawback claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

It is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

This court is of the opinion that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside with liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioners as permissible in law and after hearing the petitioners, an appropriate order in accordance with law be passed.

The petitioner has challenged inaction on the part of respondents of not sanctioning refund claims of Integrated Goods and Service Tax paid on export of goods and duty drawback eligible to the petitioner without any reason. The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent authority to release the refund.

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking multifarious reliefs. The Court is of the opinion that since order is being passed due to nonconstitution of the Tribunal by the respondent- Authorities, the petitioner would be required to present/file his appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act.

The petitioner’s grievance is that, as the time period prescribed under Section 107 (4) of the CSGT Act to challenge the impugned orders by way of a statutory appeal has lapsed, the petitioner is left remediless. Therefore, the present writ petition. The writ petition is groundless and is hence, consequently dismissed.

The petitioner is aggrieved with the condition of the Request for proposal issued by the respondents for establishing, operating and maintaining Lok Seva Kendra at Kanadia. As an interim measure, the petitioner shall be permitted to submit a proposal in pursuant to the RFP and further proceedings in pursuant to the said RFP shall be subject to final outcome of the petition.