This writ petition has been filed for the relief by way of direction upon the respondents authority concerned to bear the additional tax liability for execution of subsisting Government contracts either awarded in the pre-GST regime or in the post GST regime without updating the Schedule of Rates (SOR) incorporating the applicable GST while preparing Bill of Quantities (BOQ) for inviting the bids. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case the aforesaid impugned order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner purely on technical ground of delay of four days without going into the merit of the appeal in question, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority concerned to consider and dispose of the aforesaid appeal in question on merit and in accordance with 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

The grievance of the Petitioner that the bank account has remained attached for a long period of time, is to be noted but partially it is the Petitioner to blame for not taking recourse to Rule 159(5) of the Rules early. Petitioner is directed to approach the authority under Rule 159 (5) of the Rules.

The bail application is allowed.

The writ petition pertains to Refund of accumulated `ITC` under `inverted tax structure`. The respondent is directed to consider the case on merits.

There is nothing to demonstrate that when the audit under Section 65 has been kick started by way of a notice, show cause notice under Section 74 is impermissible. Therefore, it is not necessary to even dilate on the principles governing interference by a writ Court qua show cause notice.

One of the issues raised in the present petition is that the supply of mobile recharge coupons and Direct To Home (DTH) recharge vouchers to recipients, who are located in other States, would be inter-state supply or intra-state supply. The representation made by the petitioner shall be considered and appropriate directions shall be issued thereon by the Board within three months.

The present special leave petition is dismissed with liberty to file a petition assailing the same order afresh.

Grievance of the Petitioner seems to be the additional tax liability that the Petitioner has incurred towards the payment of GST to the Respondents. The present Writ Petition as of now stands disposed of, directing the Respondent Authorities to consider and decide the representation filed by the Petitioner at the earliest.

Mr. Subhabrata Datta, Mr. Aranya Saha for the Petitioner.

This court does not find the present case to be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. The application stands dismissed.

The appellants cannot be nonsuited by virtue of an order, which was passed by the authority without hearing them.