Author: admin_gst

Regular Bail Granted Under Section 132 CGST Act Despite Ongoing Co-Accused Investigations, Emphasizing Individual Assessment
Case-Laws
GST
The HC granted regular bail to the petitioners charged under Section 132 of the CGST Act, rejecting the denial of bail solely due to pending investigation against co-accused. The Court emphasized that bail decisions must be individualized, considering the accused's specific role, nature of accusations, evidence, and other relevant factors. The petitioners demonstrated clean antecedents, cooperation with the investigation, and the evidence primarily consisted of documentary and electronic material already with the agency. Consequently, the petitioners were ordered released on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to compliance with imposed conditions. The ruling reaffirmed that bail cannot be withheld merely because investigations continue against others implicated in the same complaint.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CGST & Central Excise Raigad Commissionerate arrests two persons for fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit of Rs. 9 crore through shell firms in New Panvel, Raigad, Mumbai Zone
GST
Dated:- 2-8-2025

A team of officers of Anti-Evasion, CGST & Central Excise Raigad Commissionerate, Mumbai Zone, yesterday arrested two persons involved in generating and fraudulently passing on Input tax Credit (ITC) of more than Rs. 9 crore by creating fictitious firms and issuing invoices without actual supply of goods/service.
Acting upon intelligence, the team identified the shell firms being operated by the accused to avail and pass on fake ITC. M/s. Jaisha Metals Private Limited availed ineligible credit passed on by non-existent firms regist

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty under Section 129(3) of GST Act set aside due to vehicle breakdown causing delay in e-way bill re-validation
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for failure to re-validate the e-way bill within the prescribed 8-hour period, accepting the petitioner's claim of vehicle breakdown causing a 15-hour delay. The Court noted the absence of wilful misconduct or tax fraud and found the appellate authority erred in dismissing the defence for lack of documentary evidence, given the circumstances of mechanical repair en route. Consequently, the orders dated 27 December 2023 and 29 August 2024 imposing the penalty and demand were quashed. The petitioners, having already paid the penalty, are entitled to seek a refund, which the authorities must consider within two weeks of application. 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

= = = = = = = =

Proceedings Under Section 130 Not Allowed for Excess Stock Discovery; Use Sections 73 or 74 Instead
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that initiation of proceedings under section 130 of the UPGST Act based on the discovery of excess stock during a survey is impermissible. The Court reaffirmed that such findings warrant proceedings under sections 73 or 74 of the GST Act instead, as section 130 is not applicable in cases of excess stock. Consequently, the impugned order initiating proceedings under section 130 was quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed, clarifying that enforcement actions under section 130 cannot be invoked solely on the basis of excess stock detected during a survey.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ Petition Dismissed for Delay Under Section 107(1) GST Act; Appellate Authority to Reconsider ITC Issues
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petition filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 107(1) of the GST Act, declining to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. The petition challenged the disallowance of ITC on grounds that the supplier failed to discharge tax liability by filing GSTR-3B returns for supplies made during August to November 2019. The court held that the Assessing Authority's demand, based on examination of records under Section 74, was proper. Questions regarding the recipient's entitlement to ITC despite the supplier's non-compliance are factual and legal issues reserved for the appellate authority under Section 107, which is empowered to reappreciate evidence. The petitioner was permitted to pursue remedy before the appellate forum, and the court clarified that discussion of facts was not an opinion on merits. 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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's Late Input Tax Credit Claim in GSTR-3B for FY 2018-19 Referred for Reconsideration Under Finance Act 2024
Case-Laws
GST
The HC addressed the petitioner's erroneous claim of input tax credit (ITC) filed after the due date in GSTR-3B returns for FY 2018-19, which was disallowed in the original order. The petitioner's rectification application, submitted on 14.02.2025 to the Superintendent, Central GST & Excise, remains pending. The court refrained from adjudicating the merits, directing the adjudicating authority to reconsider the ITC claim in light of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, relevant notifications, and circulars, subject to statutory conditions. The authority was ordered to dispose of the rectification application within three weeks of receiving a copy of the order, ensuring the petitioner is granted a personal hearing. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 73(1) mandates proper Show Cause Notice with e-signature; orders without it violate natural justice and are set aside.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that issuance of a proper, duly authenticated Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 73(1) is mandatory and cannot be replaced by a summary in GST DRC-01 or by attaching the tax determination statement. The impugned orders passed under Section 73(9) without a valid SCN violated statutory requirements and principles of natural justice, particularly due to the absence of a hearing opportunity as mandated by Section 75(4). The Court emphasized the necessity of digital or e-signature authentication by the Proper Officer to ensure validity. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 was set aside. However, the respondents were permitted to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 73 in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Proper Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1) is mandatory; orders without it violate natural justice and are quashed
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that issuance of a proper, duly authenticated Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 73(1) is mandatory and cannot be supplanted by a summary notice in GST DRC-01 or an attached tax determination statement. The impugned orders under Section 73(9) were quashed for lack of valid SCN issuance and failure to provide an opportunity of hearing as required under Section 75(4), thereby violating natural justice. The Court clarified that the Proper Officer must issue the SCN, Statement under Section 73(3), and the final order under Section 73(9), with digital authentication per Rule 26(3) due to regulatory gaps. The orders passed without proper SCN and hearing were set aside. However, liberty was granted to respondents to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 73 in accordance with statutory mandates and principles of natural justice. The petition was allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

BengalÂ’s GST collections rise 12pc in July; state outpaces Jharkhand, Odisha in monthly growth
GST
Dated:- 1-8-2025
PTI
Kolkata, Aug 1 (PTI) West Bengal reported a robust 12 per cent year-on-year growth in gross Goods and Services Tax (GST) collections for July, clocking Rs 5,895 crore compared to Rs 5,257 crore in the same month last year, according to provisional figures released by the Centre.
This marks a steady improvement in consumption and business activity in the state, putting it ahead of some of its eastern peers in terms of monthly growth.
However, cumulative GST revenues for the fiscal year so far present a mixed trend.
West Bengal’s post-settlement SGST — the state’s share after IGST apportionment — for the April

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Gross and Net GST revenue collections for the month of July, 2025
GST
Dated:- 1-8-2025

 
The gross and net GST revenue collections for the month of July, 2025.
 
News – Press release – PIB

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Gross GST mop-up rises 7.5 pc to Rs 1.96 lakh cr; refunds jump 67 pc in Jul
GST
Dated:- 1-8-2025
PTI
New Delhi, Aug 1 (PTI) Gross GST collection increased 7.5 per cent to about Rs 1.96 lakh crore in July on higher domestic revenues.
Gross Goods and Services Tax (GST) mop-up was Rs 1.82 lakh crore in July 2024. Last month, the collection was Rs 1.84 lakh crore.
The gross domestic revenue grew 6.7 per cent to Rs 1.43 lakh crore, while tax from imports rose 9.5 per cent to Rs 52,712 c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Provisional Bank Account Attachment Lifted After Appeal and Pre-Deposit Under Section 107(7) CGST Act, 2017
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the provisional attachment of the bank account was unsustainable following the filing of an appeal accompanied by the requisite pre-deposit under Section 107(7) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court affirmed that the filing of the appeal with the pre-deposit automatically operates as a stay on the impugned order, thereby rendering the attachment ineffective. Consequently, the petition challenging the attachment was disposed of in favor of the appellant.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Demand Quashed Under Unregistered JDA; No Double Taxation as Developer Paid Full GST Liability
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the impugned adjudication order and related summary order demanding GST payment from the petitioner under an unregistered Joint Development Agreement (JDA). The Court held that the JDA did not effectuate any transfer or assignment of rights by the petitioner to the developer. Since the developer, a registered person, had already discharged the entire GST liability for 100% of the property, including the petitioner's 30% share, the issue of double taxation did not arise. The respondent was estopped from contradicting the prior acceptance by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes that the developer was liable to pay GST under the JDA. Consequently, the demand for GST from the petitioner was unjustified, and the petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned orders.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Orders on revised refund claims barred by limitation under Notification 02/2019-CT set aside for fresh adjudication
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned orders dated 18.02.2021, 28.10.2020, and 27.01.2021 passed by the respective respondents concerning revised refund claims barred by limitation under Notification No. 02/2019-CT. The court held that the applicability of the Apex Court's suo motu judgment, Circular No. 157/13/2021-GST, and Notification No. 13/2020 CT requires reconsideration. Consequently, all three matters were remanded to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication in light of the recent legal developments. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with liberty granted to the respondents to raise any grounds in future writ petitions or proceedings. The petition was allowed in part.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Stay on duplicate GST demand upheld under Section 73, preventing multiple proceedings and harassment
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that issuance of multiple SCNs on the same subject matter and period by different authorities results in multiplicity of proceedings, causing harassment and conflicting decisions. The SCN dated 03.08.2024 issued by DGGI, pending before the High Court of Karnataka with a subsisting stay, precluded respondent no. 1 from adjudicating the matter, as it would duplicate proceedings. The HC directed that the matter be adjudicated solely by DGGI, whose notice covered the entire territory including the Goa branch. Relying on the principle that a stay order on a writ petition challenging a Parliamentary Act has nationwide effect, the HC set aside respondent no. 1's adjudication order dated 30.01.2025 confirming GST demand. The petition was allowed, restraining further action by respondent no. 1 and directing adherence to the stay granted by the Karnataka HC.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

SCN Issued Within Three-Month Limit Under Section 73 CGST Act; Petitioner Given Fair Hearing and Appeal Rights
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the impugned SCN issued on 30th November 2024 was within the three-month limitation period prescribed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, preceding the order dated 28th February 2025. The SCN and subsequent order were therefore not time-barred or beyond jurisdiction. The Court found that the Petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to file a reply and participate in personal hearings, with only one adjournment sought and granted, and no mandatory minimum of three adjournments required under Section 75(5). Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the Petitioner was granted the right to file an appeal against the impugned order by 31st August 2025, subject to the pre-deposit under Section 107 of the CGST Act, with the appeal to be adjudicated on merits without dismissal on limitation grounds.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Detention and Penalty Under GST Section 129 Quashed Due to No Intent to Evade Tax
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the detention and penalty orders under section 129 of the GST Act due to the absence of intent to evade tax. Although the e-way bill omitted the transporter's name, the truck number and other details were provided, and the goods were transported within Delhi as per the tax invoice and e-way bill. The Court found no evidence of tax evasion or misrepresentation, noting the appellant's unchallenged claim that the goods were transported as a full truckload to its warehouse. Consequently, the penalty proceedings lacked justification. Both the original and appellate orders impugned were set aside, and the petition was allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Notification excludes March 2020 to Feb 2022 from limitation under Sections 54 and 55 of CGST Act for refund claims
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the Notification dated 05 July 2022 excludes the period from 01 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 from the limitation period for filing refund applications under Sections 54 and 55 of the CGST Act. Consequently, the 1st and 2nd Respondents erred in rejecting the refund claim on the ground of limitation. The impugned orders dated 22 June 2022 and 27 October 2021 were set aside. The 2nd Respondent was directed to reconsider the refund application on merits, disregarding the limitation bar, and to pass a reasoned order after hearing the Petitioner within 60 days from the order's upload. The petition was allowed accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail Granted Under Section 483 B.N.S. for Accused in Input Tax Credit Irregularity Case with Conditions
Case-Laws
GST
The HC granted bail to the petitioner accused of irregularly availing input tax credit through issuance of goods-less invoices without actual supply. Considering the case's triability exclusively by a judicial magistrate, compounding potential up to Rs. 5 crore with Rs. 1,37,27,000 already deposited, absence of criminal antecedents, and the petitioner's judicial custody since 2.5.2025, bail was allowed without commenting on the case merits. The petitioner was ordered released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, subject to appearance at trial and surrendering his passport, with travel abroad requiring prior court permission. The bail application under Section 483 B.N.S. was accordingly allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appellate Authority to Restore Appeal on Filing Self-Certified Copy Under Relevant Rules Within 15 Days
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order dismissing the appeal due to non-submission of a self-certified copy of the order appealed against. The petitioner was granted liberty to file the self-certified copy before the Appellate Authority within fifteen days. Upon timely filing, the appeal shall be restored and adjudicated on merits expeditiously, preferably within two months. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Liability Confirmed Despite Limitation Plea Under GST Act Section 74(10); Appeal Allowed Under Section 107
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld the impugned order confirming tax liability on the deceased individual, rejecting the limitation plea under Section 74(10) of the GST Act by applying Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The limitation period commenced from 06.02.2020, making the order dated 05.02.2025 timely. Procedural compliance was affirmed as notices were properly served and opportunities to respond were granted. No interference was warranted with the order. However, acknowledging the petitioner's potential liability under Section 93, the court granted leave to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 within 30 days of receipt of the order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Constitutional Validity Upheld for Blocking ITC Under Rule 86A Without Prior Hearing to Prevent Fraud
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, and the related CBIC Circular, which permit blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) without prior hearing when there is reason to believe the credit was fraudulently availed or is ineligible. The Court recognized that immediate blocking is necessary to prevent irrecoverable loss, and the absence of pre-decisional hearing does not render the provision unconstitutional due to the availability of post-decisional hearing under Rule 86A(2). The petitioner's objection under this sub-rule must be decided expeditiously by the Commissioner, who may lift the blocking if satisfied. The Court directed the competent authority to pass a reasoned order on the lifting of ITC blocking within 15 days, thus disposing of the writ petition.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IGST and penalty upheld for goods detained due to missing Part B of E-way bill under Rule 138 MPGST
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld the levy of IGST and penalty for detention of goods due to non-generation of Part B of the E-way bill, despite the consignment being accompanied by a tax invoice with a Letter of Undertaking number, consignment note, and letter of credit. The court affirmed that under Rule 138 of the MPGST Rules, both Part A and Part B of FORM GST EWB-01 must be generated electronically before the movement of goods exceeding Rs. 50,000 in value. The absence of Part B invalidated the E-way bill, rendering the transportation unauthorized. The court held that generation of Part B is a mandatory statutory requirement to validate the movement, especially for export consignments. Consequently, the impugned order imposing tax and penalty was found proper, and the petition was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 107(4) timeline is directory, Limitation Act applies, natural justice violated under Sections 73 and 75
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority and the Proper Officer, holding that the timeline under Section 107(4) of the WBGST Act is directory, not mandatory, and the Limitation Act applies. The appellant demonstrated sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The court found a violation of natural justice principles as the notice under Section 73(1) was improperly communicated via the Additional Tab instead of the Normal Tab, frustrating proper service and the opportunity for hearing mandated under Sections 73(9) and 75(4). The restrictive scope of intra-court appeal was not invoked due to the fundamental procedural lapses. The judgment of the Single Judge was held to contain a patent error of law in interpreting timelines strictly while ignoring mandatory hearing provisions, warranting interference. The writ petition was allowed, and the assessment order was quashed accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective GST Cancellation Set Aside for Lack of Documents; Fresh Inspection Ordered Under GST Rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the retrospective cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration due to non-production of requisite documents, including the Aadhaar Card. Noting the petitioner's submission of a new rent agreement and availability of all necessary documents, the court directed a fresh inspection by the relevant authorities at the petitioner's new premises. The authorities were ordered to decide on the restoration of the GST registration within one month of the inspection. 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

= = = = = = = =