2026 (4) TMI 1500

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndent -State: Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP.. For the Respondents: Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w. Mr. Rupesh D. Dubey a/w. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra,. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. At the outset, Mr. Raichandani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, states that the challenge in the present Petition is confined to the impugned Or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f this Court in Makersbury India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, to contend that it is incumbent upon the authorities to adhere to the prescribed procedure and to furnish cogent reasons while passing such orders. 4.. Inasmuch as the impugned Order does not set out any reasons for cancelling the GST registration of the Petitioner, we find that the issue is no longer res integra. The requirem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....MI 1176-Bombay High Court. vi. Afzal Hussain Saiyed vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Mumbai Central 2023 (79) G.S.T.L.296 (Bom). 5. Insofar as the second grievance of the Petitioner regarding attachment of its bank accounts is concerned, it is an admitted position that the said attachment has lapsed in terms of the provisions of Section 83 of the CGST Act. 6. In the afores....