It is clear that only violation is a technical one wherein E-Way Bill was not present in the vehicle. However, it is clear that the E-Way Bill had been downloaded prior to the interception of the vehicle. Furthermore, invoice and the E-Way Bill matched with the goods in the vehicle, and accordingly, one can infer that there was no mens rea for the evasion of tax.

1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of his arrest by the respondent No. 3-Inspector, CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai (West Commissionerate) and for a declaration that the said arrest is illegal and contrary to law. Other prayers are also sought, including the prayer for interim cash bail / regular bail.

Orders cancelling registration lacked reasoned application of mind. Both orders were quashed. Petitioner to reply to show cause notice. Adjudicating authority to reevaluate with due process. Writ petition allowed.

1. Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent.

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the revenue.

2. Learned counsel for the State would submit that various notifications passed from time to time conferring powers on various authorities for the purposes of exercise of powers under Section 73 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2017”) and other provisions have been placed on record.

1. Heard Sri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

The petitioner, who was expecting immediate release of its claim felt aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents and, as such, filed the instant petition seeking, inter alia, a direction to the respondents to disburse the amount of Budgetary Support already sanctioned by respondent No. 5 in its favoiur with interest in a time bound manner.

The court dismisses the petition due to the availability of statutory appeal remedy. Petitioner directed to appeal within three days, with stay application, for expedited processing.

1. Heard Sri Vishwjit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

1. Heard Shri S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mukesh Kumar Tewari, Advocate, appearing for the accused-applicant -Mohit Kumar as well as Shri Dipak Seth, along with Shri Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsels appearing for the respondent- Union of India (Department of Revenue, Directorate of GST Intelligence, Lucknow Zonal Unit), and perused the record.