It is not open for the petitioner to challenge the terms and conditions of the agreement signed by it. This court does not find it a fit case for grant of mandamus. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

The bank account of the petitioner was erroneously attached as there is another registered person of the same name in records of the authority.

This writ petition has been filed assailing the cancellation of registration of the petitioner-Firm under the Goods and Services Tax Act as well as order passed by Appellate Authority. This Court finds that the first Appellate Authority is duty bound to consider all the grounds raised in the appeal. Before adjudicating any matter on merit, the first Appellate Authority should consider each and every ground so taken and record its findings. The order passed by first Appellate Authority is a cryptic order and the cancellation of registration of GST has a ramification effect on the business of the petitioner. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal on merits and deal with each and every grounds so taken in the appeal.

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Appellate Authority by which the petitioner’s appeal was rejected on the ground of delay in submission of Appeal. It is made clear that this court has not gone into the merits of the matter and the Appellate Authority shall decide on the facts and the law as it may consider fit

The appellant has been arrested primarily on the allegation of misuse of input credit under the CGST Act, 2017. The appellant be released on bail.

The present petition is allowed and the petitioner-Bajrang lal sharma, is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing his bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

This appeal is preferred against an order declining to entertain the writ petition on the ground that petitioner may avail alternative remedy as available under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as there is no exceptional circumstance to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar if there is violation of principles of natural justice. This court is of the opinion that it will not be equitable to relegate the appellant to avail alternative remedy.

Seeks to notify a special procedure for condonation of delay in filing of appeals against demand orders passed until 31st March, 2023.

Seeks to amend Notification No. 27/2022 dated 26.12.2022 to notify biometric-based Aadhaar authentication for GST registration in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by the first appellate authority imposing tax and penalty upon the petitioner. This Court finds that the GST Council had already dispensed with the mandatory provision of carrying e-way bill till 31.03.2018. Accordingly, the taxing authorities were not justified in levying tax and imposing penalty.

The grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd., writ petition is disposed of.

The petitioner has already filed a revised TRAN-I during the window period granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another versus Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. and another