This writ petition has been filed assailing the order rejecting the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order. This Court finds that the first appellate authority was not justified in rejecting the application for recalling the ex-parte order, and thus, the order passed on the application rejecting the recall of the ex-parte order is hereby set aside.

Mr. Siddhartha S. Sengupta, Advocate Mr. Sumit Ghosh, Advocate for the Petitioner.

The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is rejected.

This Court has not entered into the merits of the matter. Both the parties are at liberty to raise all contentions which they may prefer to have raised before this Court. Notice is discharged.

The present writ petition is not maintainable and, accordingly, is dismissed as such without any order as to costs.

This writ petition has been filed assailing the order passed by the first appellate authority under Section 129 (3) of UPGST Act read with Section 20 of IGST Act. The order passed by the first appellate authority requiring the petitioner to have e-way/TDS bill when the vehicle was detained on 03.03.2018 does not hold good and the order dated 10.12.2021 is set-aside to that extent.

The case of the petitioner in this instant writ petition is that the vehicles carrying taxable goods of the petitioner entered the State of Tripura a few days later than anticipated and during which period, the validity of the ‘e-Way bills’ had expired. This Court is of the opinion that the ‘e-Way bills’ had expired during the transit and the petitioner was not in a position to ask for its renewal to the competent authority when the vehicle entered into the territory of the State of Tripura. Accordingly, this instant writ petition is allowed

This Court is inclined to allow the writ petition and declare the action on the part of the respondent in blocking the ITC available to the petitioner in the electronic cash ledger to be arbitrary, bad in law and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the said impugned action is set aside/quashed holding it to be illegal and the matter stands remitted back to the respondent for taking a fresh decision after giving a notice of personal hearing to the petitioner.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, praying that the respondents be directed to revoke the cancellation of petitioner’s GST registration. Respondent states on instructions that the petitioner’s application for revocation of the order cancelling its GST registration would be processed. The petitioner is also aggrieved by orders passed under Section 83 of CGST Act. In terms of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, any order passed under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act would be inoperative after expiry of a period of one year from the date of the said order. This court consider it apposite to direct the concerned banks not to interdict the operation of the bank accounts on the basis of the orders passed under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent. This Court feels that the time period of 2 days is not sufficient to make the payment of demanded amount by the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant a period of 3 months time to the petitioner for payment of balance amount demanded by the respondent towards interest.

Supplies made to a Polytechnic could not be considered as supplies to an educational institution. The demand was founded on the basis that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the communication informing the petitioner regarding deficiencies in its application for refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit. The petitioner assails the impugned communication, essentially, on two grounds. First, that the officer issuing the impugned communication is not authorized or competent to do so. And second, that there is no deficiency in the refund application preferred by the petitioner. This court directs the concerned officer to issue the acknowledgment in terms of Rule 90 of the CGST Rules and process the petitioner’s application for refund in accordance with the law