The present petition does not survive for consideration. In the event of passing any adverse order against the petitioner by the statutory authority, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court, if he has no alternative remedy.

Merely because by mistake, the assessee paid duties on the goods which are exempted from payment does not mean that the goods would become goods liable for the duty under the Act

A person within the ambit of Section 100 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter collectively called ‘the GST Act’), if aggrieved by this Ruling, may appeal against it before the West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, constituted under Section 99 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this Ruling, or within such further time as mentioned in the proviso to Section 100 (2) of the GST Act.

The present is a third petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a complaint case under Section 132 of the CGST Act. This Court deems it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

The period of expiry of the e-way bill is very minor i.e. only three hours and the reason for such expiry is supported with relevant documents, The impugned order of the adjudicating authority and the order of the appellate authority are set aside and as a consequence, petitioner will be entitled to get a refund of the penalty and tax in question expeditiously.

The challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned proceedings issued under Rules 22(1) and Sub-Rule (2A) of 21 of CGST Rules. This writ petition is allowed and the impugned show-cause notice is set aside and consequently, the registration of the petitioner is restored with immediate effect.

The Court finds that the basis of filing of the complaint case has already been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court and the matter has been remitted back to the concerned authority to pass afresh order. As the basis of filing the complaint case has already been quashed, to allow the criminal proceeding to continue will amount to the abuse of the process of law. After the fresh assessment in view of the judgment of the Division Bench if the State finds that there is a fresh cause of action the State may move in accordance with the law.

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.

The application filed by the applicant is rejected as the GAAR does not have the jurisdiction to rule on the question on account of the fact that as per the applicant, the place of supply is Madhya Pradesh. The proper authority for giving a ruling on the aforementioned question is the Madhya Pradesh AAR and not GAAR.

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.