The State GST Department exercises quasi judicial functions while acting under the provisions of the GST Act and thus, it is expected from such officer to act judiciously, consider the reply of the party, apply mind to the facts and law and pass a reasoned order. The impugned orders and demand notices do not stand to test of law, i.e. mandate of Section 31 read with Section 238 of the IBC and the interpretation thereof. Hence, the same are declared to be invalid and quashed

Since there is no ill intent on the part of the petitioner to use the expired e-Way bill, the order of detention as well as the further notice issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act in FORM GST MOV-07 is also quashed and set aside, with all consequential benefits.

Gaming services are game of skill and would not be covered as gaming of chance or gambling. The issuance of the impugned show cause notice is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

The writ petition is dismissed, without interfering with order and holding that it will be open to the petitioners to raise all their contentions before the appellate authority.

The short grievance in this writ petition is that the petitioner’s appeal against the order is not being decided by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. The petitioner thus wants a direction to be issued to the respondent to consider and decide the aforesaid appeal within a time-bound period. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent to consider and decide the appeal in accordance with law.

The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition is that for release of goods. In any case, once from the facts on record, which have gone undisputed, the petitioner, who is consignor in the invoice and e-Way Bill, claims himself to be the owner of the goods, the provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act could not be invoked for imposing penalty.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, that directions be issued to respondents to disburse the amount of refund granted to the petitioner in terms of the order-in-appeal dated 19.06.2023. The petitioner’s claim was denied principally on the ground that the petitioner’s turnover for the relevant period as less than the refund claimed and that the petitioner had availed an excess ITC. The respondents are directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s claim for refund along with applicable interest, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from today.

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking multifarious reliefs. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The Court is of the opinion that since 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. Case referred/cited :-

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a Show Cause Notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why its registration should not be cancelled. The impugned order does not reflect any reason for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. It merely states that the tax payer had not given any response to the impugned SCN. The SCN, as stated above, was incapable of eliciting any meaningful response. The impugned SCN and the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration are set aside. The petitioner’s GST registration shall be restored forthwith.

The petitioner’s apprehension that he would be coerced to deposit the further amount can be addressed by directing the respondents not to accept any amount of tax from the petitioner since the petitioner has unequivocally made clear that he does not wish to voluntarily deposit any tax with the concerned authority and there is no dispute that the petitioner cannot be compelled to deposit the tax without following the procedure under Section 73, 74 and 79 of the CGST Act.

The proceedings under Section 74 was initiated and a notice was issued on the ground that Rohit Coal Traders (one of the suppliers) was not found to be in existence and meaning thereby the purchases shown by the petitioner are bogus. If the seller i.e. Rohit Coal Trader was found non- existence, the proceeding can be initiated but the authorities has failed to consider the fact that GSTR returns as prescribed under the Act was filed by the seller to which not a single word has been whispered while passing the impugned order. The impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remanded to the first appellate authority, who shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Rectification of typographical error appeared in the order.