This Court is of the considered view that the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority should be heard on merits by passing appropriate orders regarding the revocation of cancellation of GST. It is, therefore, ordered that the pending appeal be disposed of by the Appellate Authority on merits rather than dismissing or rejecting the same on the ground of limitation and requiring the petitioner to approach this Court once again by filing a writ.

his Court is of the considered view that the principles of natural justice has not been adhered to by the respondent and the impugned Assessment Order is also a non-speaking order with regard to the Annual Return submitted by the petitioner for the Assessment year 2018-19. Hence, the impugned Assessment Order has to be quashed and the matter will have to be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law

By this application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant is seeking release on regular bail. This Court, prima facie, is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail.

Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. In the absence of reason, the order becomes lifeless. Nonrecording of reasons renders the order violative of principles of natural justice. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the same has been passed without recording any cogent reason for canceling the GST registration of the petitioner and the appellate authority has also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner summarily without assigning any reason. The matter is remitted back to the first appellate authority who shall pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

A present petition has been filed challenging the order passed in the exercise of powers under Section 73 of GST Act as well as the order whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The original order suffers from the vice of not following the mandatory provisions under Section 75(4) of GST Act and thus, is clearly contrary to the mandate cast by virtue of Section 75(4) of GST Act and is also in violation of principles of natural justice, thus, this court deem it appropriate to quash both the orders and remand the matter to the assessing authority to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

By means of this writ petition, petitioners have assailed the order by which the registration of the petitioner’s firm was cancelled and the same has been confirmed by the order passed by respondent no.2 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. In the case in hand, the petitioner, in peculiar circumstances, the petitioner could not deposit the amount of tax but now the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount of tax. Respondent is directed to restore the registration of the petitioner

The petitioner was in violation of the provisions of Section 68 of the CGST and Rule 138 of the 2017 Rules, no fault can be found with the orders passed by the authorities. For the purpose of Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 there is no requirement that there should be an intention to evade tax. The authorities are not required to establish an intention to evade payment of tax. Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 has been enacted to check the evasion of tax. If the goods are intercepted during transit and the documents accompanying the goods are not in compliance with the provisions of the Act, authorities are within their power to detain the goods and demand payment of tax and a 100% penalty under the provisions. Moreover, the petitioner does not deny that payment under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 has been made.

Petitioner be admitted to regular bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court through e-mail/fax, for necessary compliance.

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the Show Cause notice issued by the respondent in FORM GST DRC-01. This writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit an additional reply raising the contentions that have been raised in this writ petition to the respondents, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Since the question of law has been raised in this writ petition this writ petition is being entertained and the issues will be adjudicated on affidavits to be filed by the respondents. Let the respondents file an affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks, petitioner to file reply thereto, if any, within two weeks thereafter. List this matter for final hearing after eight weeks.

This writ petition is filed impugning the order passed by the respondent whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled. According to the petitioner, the order of cancellation of the GST registration was passed without any notice to the petitioner. Upon payment of statutory dues under the GST by the petitioner, the cancellation of the GST registration in respect of the writ petitioner shall be revoked by the respondent authorities.

Since it is the substantive ground in the Appeal that the petitioner has raised so far as an opportunity of hearing being denied, it is this which would be first looked into by the Appellate Authority. It would also be left open for the Appellate Authority to consider whether there is justifiable reasons and grounds available for the petitioner in not preferring the Appeal under Section 107 before the Respondent within the prescribed period or within a reasonable period of time.