The prayer is for a mandamus directing the respondents to enable the petitioner to rectify clerical errors in the details uploaded by it in Form GSTR -1 for the period 2017-18 and cause amendment of the Forms. This Court is inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner and issues a mandamus to the respondents to do the needful to enable uploading of the rectified GSTR 1.

The Court is of the view that the issues and aspects raised in the petition on merits with regard to the challenge to the impugned order and rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner could be better agitated before the appellate tribunal. The present petition is dismissed on the said ground alone without expressing any opinion of the merits.

The learned Additional Solicitor General raises a preliminary objection that what is challenged in this petition is only a notice under Rule 142(1-A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which is not a show cause notice and therefore the challenge is premature. it would be appropriate to defer the hearing of the petition so that the learned ASG can take instructions on whether the case of the Petitioner is covered by the Circulars as sought to be contended by the Petitioners.

The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the CGST Act and challenges an order passed by the respondent rejecting the request for amendment of TRAN-1. the petitioner has categorically missed the bus, seeing as the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. has granted a window as a final opportunity for correction of all errors arising from filing of TRAN-1 and 2.

The challenge in this writ petition is to the notice under Section 70 (1) of CGST Act. this writ petition is allowed and the impugned portion of the notice issued under Section 70 (1) of GST Act i.e., “in view of the above explanation you are hereby requested to stop all further payments from here onwards until clearance is given by the undersigned” is set aside and liberty is given to the 3rd respondent to proceed in accordance with law so far as the other part of the notice issued by him under section 70 (1) of GST Act is concerned.

The appeal of the petitioner has been filed after a period of 6 months. The dismissal of the appeal by is seen to be in order.

The sum and substance of Section 75(4) is that a personal hearing shall be granted in all matters prior to the finalization of assessment except where the stand of the assessee is intended to be accepted by the Department. Thus, on this score, the officer has grossly erred in proceeding to finalize the impugned assessment in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order on the ground that it has been passed without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. At such a belated point of time, the Court is of the opinion that, the matter is not required to be remanded back to the authority for reconsideration. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

This Court is of the view that considering the gravity and the magnitude of the allegations involved in the present case and also the apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that in case the petitioner is released on bail, then he may threaten the witnesses, this Court does not deem it fit and proper to grant bail to the petitioner. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

The petitioner admits that the vehicle in which the goods stood transferred for being transported allegedly to the pre-recorded destination, did not have an e-way bill. The Court is convinced that the provision of Section 129 will be attracted in such a situation and has been rightly invoked by the authority. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Since the Petitioners are not pressing the petitions and seeking only the extension of the protective measures, this court have to consider this request

The Court is of the opinion that since the order is being passed due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondent-Authorities, the petitioner would be required to present/file his appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional and the President or the State President may enter office. Impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the GST Act.