Court denies discretionary jurisdiction, advises appeal against cancellation order. Appellant granted options to file appeal.

The court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction, stating the appellant had the remedy of appeal against the cancellation order and that the writ remedy was misconceived. The court found no merit in interfering with the jurisdiction exercised but clarified that the appellant could explore other available options. The appellant was granted liberties to avail options under Ext.P7 notification and file an appeal with an application to condone delay before the Appellate Authority. The court instructed the Standing Counsel to inform relevant respondents about the granted liberties. The writ appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Exts.P8 and P9, direction for expeditious consideration of representation, recall of cancellation of registration under CGST Act, appeal against cancellation order, discretionary jurisdiction of the court, options available to the appellant under Ext.P7 notification.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged Exts.P8 and P9 and sought a direction for the expeditious consideration of their representation. The appellant aimed to secure the recall of the cancellation of registration under the CGST Act and utilize the option provided by Ext.P7 notification. The court noted the submissions made by the appellant and considered the circumstances of the case.

The learned Single Judge declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction, stating that the appellant had the remedy of appeal against the impugned order and that the writ remedy was misconceived. The court agreed with the Single Judge's decision, finding no merit in interfering with the jurisdiction exercised. However, the court clarified that this decision did not preclude the appellant from exploring other available options.

In light of the circumstances and to meet the ends of justice, the court granted the appellant certain liberties. Firstly, the appellant was given the liberty to avail the options provided under Ext.P7 notification. Additionally, the appellant was allowed to file an appeal, along with an application to condone the delay, against the cancellation of registration before the Appellate Authority. The court instructed the Standing Counsel to inform the relevant respondents about the liberty granted to the appellant. The writ appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

---