hese writ petitions have been filed assailing the order passed by the Assessing Authority reversing the ITC and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner conforming the order of Assessing Authority. The first Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground that the firm which had supplied the goods to the petitioner`s firm, i.e. M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises, Agra, its registration was already cancelled and moreover the petitioner has not mentioned any amount for loading and unloading of the goods. The matter is remanded to the first Appellate Authority to record specific finding as to when the registration of supplier i.e. M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises, Agra was cancelled.

This Court finds that by ex parte order the first appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as he has failed to appear before the authority on due dates. This Court directs the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal of the petitioner on merits after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and decide the same.

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the impugned order and the impugned notice of demand issued under Form DRC-07 and also the summary of show cause notice on the ground that the same has been issued without following the due provisions of Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax. Accordingly, the impugned order and summary of show cause notice are quashed and set aside

Writ petition dismissed preserving the rights of the writ petitioner to the limited extent of availing a statutory remedy subject to limitation and/or pre-deposit if any.

This Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to Appellate Authority.

It is directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to the conditions to be imposed by the trial Court.

The present writ petition assails the order passed by respondent cancelling the registration of the petitioner. The order passed by the authority cancelling the registration hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to respondent to decide the matter giving an opportunity to petitioner

No writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondent/Union of India to exempt the drugs from payment of any tax or custom duty. No writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to permit import the drugs for treatment of SMA directly without approaching the Centre of Excellence. In view of the above, the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for in the instant writ petition.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order whereby the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled. The impugned SCN does not satisfy the rudimentary requirement of a show cause notice. In view of the above, the impugned order is void as having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the above, the impugned order as well as the impugned SCN are set aside. The respondent is directed to forthwith restore the petitioner’s GST registration.

Issue notice to the Attorney General, returnable on 17th January, 2024, insofar as the challenge to the provisions of Section 15(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 being unconstitutional and violative of Articles 246A and 366(12) of the Constitution of India is prayed for.

The grievance of the petitioner is on the action initiated by the respondents under the provisions of Section 74 of MGST Act of issuance of a show cause notice on the basis that the company, had availed of Input Tax Credit from M/s.Keshav Trading Company which was declared as a bogus entity and was a Non-Genuine Tax Payer (NGP). This court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate that the respondents move an application before the NCLT to seek appropriate orders on the action as sought to be taken against the petitioner.

The primary grievance of the petitioner is concerning the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account by the respondents in the exercise of powers conferred under Section 83 of the CGST Act. This court thinks that now as an order has been passed by the adjudicating officer deciding the show cause notices and as the petitioner is now desirous to assail the said order-in-original by adopting the appropriate remedy as available in law, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to proceed with such course of action of filing of an appeal to assail the order-in-original