Goods and Services Tax

GST Demand Quashed: Authorities Wrongly Combined Turnover of Two Firms Under Same PAN Number
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed the show cause notice and demand raised against the petitioner (Jindal Communication) due to an erroneous assessment based on GST turnover discrepancies. The Court determined that the respondent authorities could not dispute the petitioner's explanation that the alleged turnover difference resulted from two separate firms (Jindal Communication and Jindal Marketing Company) being registered under the same PAN number. The authorities had incorrectly attributed the combined turnover to a single entity, leading to an unsustainable demand. The petition was accordingly allowed, invalidating both the notice and subsequent assessment order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Assessment Orders Nullified After Tax Officer Denied Requested Personal Hearing, Violating Natural Justice Principles
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside assessment orders due to violation of principles of natural justice, as the Assessing Officer failed to grant personal hearing despite the petitioner's request in their reply notice. The Court held that when an assessee opts for personal hearing in their reply, the Assessing Officer must grant it, even if “no” was marked in the form. Following precedent from Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Limited, the Court determined that writ petitions are maintainable against assessment orders when principles of natural justice are violated. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer with specific direction to verify the bank realization certificate uploaded in the GST portal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

60-Day Limitation Under GST Act Section 62(2) Is Directory, Not Mandatory for Filing Returns
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the 60-day limitation period under Section 62(2) of the GST Act is directory rather than mandatory. Where a registered person fails to file returns within the prescribed timeframe, resulting in best judgment assessment orders, the right to file returns cannot be denied merely because the 60-day period has elapsed. If the taxpayer demonstrates valid reasons beyond their control for the delay, such delay can be condoned upon application. The petitioner was directed to file a delay condonation application within 15 days, which the second respondent must consider on merits before permitting revised returns. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Improper GST Notice Service Through Portal Only Violates Natural Justice Under Section 161 of GST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside orders passed under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 due to violation of natural justice principles. The Department failed to serve notices through physical means, instead making them available only in the GST Portal under “View of additional notices and orders” column, which petitioner was unaware of. The Court determined the impugned orders were passed ex parte without affording the petitioner opportunity of hearing. The matters were remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration with direction to provide proper notice and hearing opportunity to the petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST Appeal Rejection Overturned: Small Business Owner Gets Second Chance Despite Form Error and 19-Day Delay
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's GST appeal due to time limitation. Despite the petitioner erroneously writing “NA” in the delay explanation section of GST APL-04 form, the Court found no lack of bona fide, noting the petitioner had made the required pre-deposit of Rs. 10,900/- when filing the appeal. Considering the petitioner's status as a small businessman, the 19-day delay, and that no advantage was gained by filing a belated appeal, the Court directed the appellate authority to allow the petitioner to file a condonation of delay application, thereby providing an opportunity for the appeal to be heard on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST Registrations Restored After Cancellation Orders Set Aside for Procedural Violations Under Section 29(2)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside orders cancelling GST registrations under CGST/SGST Acts 2017, finding procedural violations by the Proper Officer. The court determined that cancellation under Section 29(2) requires proper notice and meaningful opportunity for hearing per Rule 22, not mere formality. Despite petitioners' failure to respond to show cause notices, the impugned orders erroneously referenced non-existent replies, rendering the proceedings defective. While revocation applications were time-barred (exceeding 270 days under Rule 23), the court intervened due to jurisdictional errors. The registrations were restored with conditions, including extended deadlines for filing annual returns except for 2024-2025, which remains governed by Section 44 requirements.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Customs Order Set Aside: Authority Failed to Consider Reply to Show Cause Notices, Violating Natural Justice Principles
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned Order-in-Original due to procedural irregularities that violated principles of natural justice. The order had incorrectly proceeded on the premise that the petitioner had not filed any reply to the Show Cause Notices, when in fact a response had been submitted. This factual error constituted a fundamental breach of procedural fairness, as the adjudicating authority failed to consider the petitioner's submissions before reaching its determination. The writ petition was accordingly allowed, invalidating the original order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

R'than Assembly passes GST Amendment Bill by voice vote
GST
Dated:- 12-3-2025
PTI
Jaipur, Mar 12 (PTI) The Rajasthan Assembly on Wednesday passed the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill-2025 by voice vote amid a walkout staged by the Opposition Congress.
Deputy Chief Minister Diya Kumari presented the bill in the House, and it was passed by voice vote.
She said that the passage of this bill would bring continuity to the tax collection system, and along with the revenu

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Minor Typographical Errors in Tax Invoices and E-way Bills Don't Justify Harsh Penalties Under CGST Act Section 129(1)(b)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC ruled that when a taxpayer produces tax invoices and e-way bills with minor typographical errors (such as incorrect vehicle number HR-46C-4623 instead of HR-58C-4623), goods should be released under Section 129(1)(a) rather than 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act. Following precedent established in Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. & others and the circular dated 31.12.2018, the Court held that when documents establish ownership despite minor errors, penalties under Section 129(1)(b) are inappropriate. The authorities were directed to expedite the release of goods under Section 129(1)(a). Petition allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Assessment Orders Under GST Section 73(9) Quashed as Target Company Ceased to Exist After Merger
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed three assessment orders issued under Section 73(9) of the GST Act against MVIL, as they were passed after MVIL had already merged with the petitioner company and ceased to exist. Following the Supreme Court's precedent in Maruti Suzuki India Limited and Delhi High Court's ruling in HCL Infosystems Ltd., the court held that proceedings against a non-existent entity are fundamentally invalid. The court determined that Section 87 of the GST Act does not permit continuation of proceedings against an entity that has legally ceased to exist due to merger. The assessment orders dated 29.11.2023, 27.04.2024, and 26.08.2024 were accordingly set aside.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST Proceedings Revived: Court Allows Filing of Objections to Show Cause Notice Under Section 73 Due to Medical Grounds
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the petition by remanding the matter back to the stage of filing objections to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of GST Act. Despite the petitioner's appeal being rejected solely on grounds of delay, the Court determined it retained jurisdiction to examine the ex-parte order. The Court found that the petitioner's inability to participate in the original proceedings was justified by documented medical evidence of heart ailment requiring surgery. Following precedent established in M/S. CHAMARAJNAGAR TALUK MSPC, the Court held that the petitioner deserved an opportunity to participate in the proceedings by filing objections to the show cause notice.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST Show Cause Notices Uploaded Only on Portal Without Physical Service Violates Natural Justice Principles
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 due to violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents had uploaded show cause notices only on the GST Portal under “Additional Notice” tab without physical service, which went unnoticed by the petitioner. Although the petitioner's former consultant filed a reply on 20.06.2024, the respondents passed an order raising tax/interest/penalty demands without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. The petitioner only became aware of the rejection of their reply on 04.01.2025 when receiving a notice dated 02.01.2025. The Court remanded the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration, allowing the petition.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

IGST Refund Ordered for Zero-Rated Supply as Departmental Circulars Cannot Override Rule 96 of CGST Rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC directed the refund of IGST paid under Section 16(3) of IGST Act read with Section 54 of CGST Act and Rule 96 of CGST Rules for zero-rated supply. The court determined that departmental circulars cannot override Rule 96, relying on precedent established in Amit Cotton Industries (Gujarat HC). The court ordered the respondent to refund Rs. 12,72,827 with applicable interest to the petitioner within eight weeks from receipt of the order. The petition was allowed, confirming that administrative circulars cannot supersede statutory rules governing IGST refund procedures for zero-rated supplies.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Appellate Authority Wrong to Reject GST Appeal When 10% Tax Deposit Made Within Limitation Period Under Section 107
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the Appellate Authority erroneously rejected appellant's appeal under Section 107 of the 2017 Act. While the appellant did not deposit the required 10% tax amount simultaneously with filing the appeal, they did make the payment within five days, which was still within the statutory limitation period prescribed by Section 107(1). The Court determined that Section 107(6)(b) should receive liberal interpretation, and when statutory deposit is made within the overall limitation period, it satisfies the requirement of deposit “along with appeal.” Since both the appeal filing and statutory deposit occurred within the prescribed limitation period, the appeal should have been considered on its merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds. Petition allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST official suicide: Wife claims 'immense work pressure'
GST
Dated:- 11-3-2025
PTI
Noida, Mar 11 (PTI) The wife of the deputy commissioner of GST posted in Ghaziabad, who allegedly committed suicide, claimed that her husband was under “immense work pressure” and added that he did not have stage four cancer, police said on Tuesday.
According to police, the incident took place in Apex Athena Society on Monday when Sanjay Singh (59), who worked in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Dep

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Incomplete Job Work Challans Justify GST Penalty Under Section 129 for Goods Found at Undocumented Destination
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld tax and penalty under GST Act Section 129 after goods were found at a different destination than documented. The court determined that the petitioner failed to comply with Rule 55 requirements for issuing proper job work challans. Upon examining the challan produced by the ACSC, the court noted it lacked several mandatory descriptions prescribed under Rule 55. This incomplete documentation constituted a clear contravention of the Rules. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the proceedings were arbitrary, finding that the violation of Rule 55 justified the tax and penalty imposition under Section 129 of the GST Act. Petition dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner Granted Bail After 4-Year Incarceration: Court Reduces Onerous Conditions Under Section 167(2) CrPC and Section 479 BNSS
Case-Laws
GST
The HC granted bail to the petitioner who had been incarcerated for over 4 years despite being eligible for default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC (now Section 187(3) of BNSS). The Court held that imposing onerous conditions like surety bonds of Rs. 1.10 crore and a bank guarantee of Rs. 55 lakhs was antithetical to principles of justice and fairness. The Court emphasized that default bail is not merely a statutory right but flows from the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21. Additionally, the petitioner qualified for release under Section 479 of BNSS having served detention exceeding one-third of the maximum prescribed sentence. The petitioner was ordered released on bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs. 50,000 with one surety.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST Adjudication Orders Quashed: Section 74 Proceedings Conducted Without Personal Hearing Violate Natural Justice
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed adjudication orders passed under s.74 of the Jharkhand GST Act, 2017, as they were issued without granting the petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The court noted that state tax authorities continue to conduct proceedings in disregard of mandatory statutory provisions, resulting in potential revenue loss. Despite previous directions in M/s. Godavari Commodities Limited (2022) instructing the Commissioner to issue guidelines on proper procedures, compliance was lacking. The court allowed both writ petitions with costs, quashing the impugned adjudication orders dated 05.06.2024 and 10.07.2024, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration following proper procedure.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Fruit Juice-Based Drinks Correctly Classified Under Tariff Item 2202 99 20, Not 2202 10 90; Section 74 Penalties Set Aside
Case-Laws
GST
HC determined the petitioner's products were correctly classified under Tariff Item 2202 99 20 as “fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drinks” rather than under 2202 10 90 as “waters containing added sugar or flavoured.” The court held that classification depends on the dominant nature of the product, with the presence of fruit juice attributing essential character to the beverage. The Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof by not providing alternative test reports. The court set aside penalties under Section 74 of CGST Act, finding no evidence of willful suppression or fraud. Interest levied under Section 50 was also invalidated, and the court clarified that post-October 2021 tax notifications could not be applied retrospectively.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST Proceedings Stayed for MIDC Land Leasehold Rights Transfers Under Schedule III Clause 5
Case-Laws
GST
HC stayed GST proceedings related to assignment of leasehold rights of MIDC land plots and buildings constructed thereon for lump sum consideration. Following Gujarat HC's precedent in Gujarat Chambers of Commerce case, which held that assignment/transfer of leasehold rights of industrial development corporation land constitutes transfer of benefits arising from “immovable property” and falls outside GST's scope under Section 7(1)(a) read with Schedule II clause 5(b) and Schedule III clause 5. All show cause notices remain unadjudicated, and any existing adjudication orders for listed entities are stayed. The court scheduled the matter for directions on March 10, 2025, when a final hearing date will be determined.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Improper Service of GST Demand Notice on Portal Under “Additional Notices” Section Invalidated as Inaccessible to Taxpayer
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the impugned order where a demand notice was challenged for improper service. Following Anhad Impex precedent, the Court found that notices uploaded under “additional notices and orders” on the GST portal were not easily accessible and thus escaped the petitioner's attention. While Section 169 permits service via the common portal, the Court emphasized that the purpose of service is to make assessees aware of communications. The Court directed respondents to allow the petitioner to file a response within 30 days and for the notice to be properly adjudicated. The HC left open the question of whether email notifications should accompany portal uploads to ensure effective service.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST Authority's Order Quashed for Failing to Provide Hearing Under Section 75(4) Despite Taxpayer's Reconciliation Explanation
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the tax authorities violated principles of natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner's explanation regarding duplication of taxable supply amounts in Form GSTR-1. The petitioner had demonstrated in Form GST ASMT-11 that there was no actual discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 returns, as the data had been reconciled. Despite this, authorities proceeded to issue notice under section 73 and passed an order-in-original without providing the mandatory hearing opportunity required by section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court allowed the petition, remanding the matter to respondent no.3 for a fresh de novo order after providing the petitioner proper hearing opportunity.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST Adjudication Challenge Dismissed: Writ Petition Rejected as Statutory Appeal Remedy Available Under Section 107A
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed a petition challenging a GST adjudication order on grounds of natural justice violations, specifically denial of cross-examination opportunity. The Court held that orders under Section 74 of the GST Act are appealable under Section 107A, providing an adequate statutory remedy for the aggrieved party. Following established legal principle, the HC's writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when specific statutory remedies exist, absent exceptional circumstances. The petitioner failed to demonstrate such exceptional circumstances warranting judicial intervention through writ jurisdiction. The Court determined that adequate opportunities had been provided to the petitioner to present their case, and the denial of cross-examination did not constitute a breach of natural justice principles.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Appeal Under GST Section 107 Deemed Timely Based on Three-Month Limitation Period Calculation Method
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the petition challenging the rejection of an appeal against Ext.P1 order under Section 107 of CGST/SGST Acts, 2017. The respondent had dismissed the appeal as time-barred, but the Court relied on Supreme Court precedent in Himachal Techno Engineers, which established that a three-month limitation period expires in the third month on the date corresponding to the commencement date, regardless of the actual number of days. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's appeal filed on 06-11-2023 was within the condonable period stipulated in Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Acts, and accordingly allowed the petition.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST Deputy Commissioner jumps to death from 15th floor of his apartment building in Noida
GST
Dated:- 10-3-2025
PTI
Noida, Mar 10 (PTI) A GST deputy commissioner allegedly jumped to death on Monday from the 15th floor of his apartment building in Noida Sector 75, with his family claiming that he was in depression, police said.
The incident took place in Apex Athena Society when Sanjay Singh, who worked in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department in Ghaziabad, jumped from the buil

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =