Author: admin_gst

HC sets aside appellate order rejecting GST appeal for non-payment of pre-deposit under Section 107
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside an appellate authority's order under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, which had rejected petitioner's appeal for non-payment of pre-deposit amount. Despite petitioner having statutory remedy before appellate tribunal, the HC noted the tribunal remains unconstituted. Considering petitioner had already deposited equivalent pre-deposit amount, the HC deemed it prudent to remand the matter to appellate authority for decision on merits. The appellate order dated 29th November, 2024 was set aside and petition disposed of by way of remand, allowing fresh consideration of the substantive issues.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner wins challenge as recovered amount exceeds total tax demand under Section 107 WBGST/CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the petitioner's challenge to an appellate order under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had belatedly filed an appeal against a Section 74 order dated 19th January 2021 covering the tax period April 2018 to November 2019, depositing 12.5% of disputed tax under the belated filing scheme. However, Rs.1,45,188 had been recovered from the petitioner's credit ledger against demand id ZD190121004969C, which was not properly credited in Form GST APL-04. Since the total tax demand in Form GST DRC-07 was Rs.1,14,736 and Rs.1,45,188 had already been recovered, no further demand could be raised. The HC found the recovered amount should have been adjusted against principal tax demand first, remanding the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration due to lack of clarity in the order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner cannot repudiate bail deposit offer after securing modification through counsel, SC remits matter for fresh consideration
Case-Laws
GST
The SC set aside both the original bail order and subsequent modification order due to the petitioner's contradictory conduct regarding a Rs. 50,00,000 deposit condition. The petitioner initially offered the monetary deposit through counsel, secured bail modification allowing payment post-release, then repudiated the offer claiming counsel lacked authority and the condition was onerous. The Court held that while excessive bail constitutes no bail and onerous conditions should be avoided, parties cannot “approbate and reprobate” or manipulate judicial proceedings. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. Despite the petitioner's conduct warranting re-incarceration, limited interim protection from surrender was granted. The Chief Justice of Madras HC was directed to place the matter before appropriate court by 30.06.2025. SLP disposed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessment order set aside with 10% tax deposit required within four weeks for E-way bill disputes
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the assessment order dated 23.08.2024 involving challenges to E-way bill cancellations for inward/outward activities, non-supply of E-way bills, ITC reversal for wind mill maintenance, and non-production of bank receipts. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the disputed taxes within four weeks from receipt of the court order, as agreed by both parties' counsel. The petition was disposed of with this conditional relief, effectively staying the enforcement of the original assessment while requiring partial payment as security pending final resolution of the tax dispute.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input Tax Credit claim allowed under Section 16(5) CGST Act despite Section 16(4) limitation bar
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed orders dated 26.03.2024 and 30.05.2024 passed by the respondent-Department that reversed/negatived petitioner's Input Tax Credit claim. The court held that while the ITC claim was barred by limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, it fell within the prescribed period under Section 16(5) of the same Act. Consequently, the respondent-Department was restrained from initiating any proceedings against the petitioners based on the impugned orders concerning the limitation issue. The petitioner successfully relied on precedent from another case to support their position. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 74 TNGST Act orders quashed due to wrong form usage and double jeopardy procedural violations
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed orders passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, finding procedural irregularities constituting double jeopardy. The court identified that Form GST DRC 05 was incorrectly issued instead of the proper GST DRC 07 format for adjudication orders. The impugned order dated 27.08.2024 was passed without petitioner's participation in proceedings initiated via DRC 01 dated 20.12.2023, creating procedural overlap. The HC remitted the matter to the first respondent with directions to pass fresh orders on merit in accordance with law within 30 days of receiving the judgment copy. The petition was disposed of with the quashing of the contested orders.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessment order set aside for failing to consider objections on intra-state supplies and SEZ invoices
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the assessing authority for fresh consideration. The court found violation of natural justice principles as the respondent failed to properly consider the petitioner's objections regarding whether trial balances included only intra-state supplies or also inter-state supplies from Andhra Pradesh. The authority also failed to account for invoices with proper endorsements relating to supplies made to SEZ units. The court held that non-consideration of the petitioner's objections was established, necessitating remand for re-appreciation of grounds raised and verification of invoices and documents submitted for liability reduction. The petition was disposed of through remand proceedings.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

7 businessmen nabbed in Assam for 'GST evasion'
GST
Dated:- 25-6-2025
PTI
Guwahati, Jun 25 (PTI) Seven businessmen have been arrested in Assam for allegedly evading tax by moving goods without proper documentation, an official release said on Wednesday.
The Commissioner of State Goods and Services Tax in a statement said that an FIR was lodged against seven individuals, proprietors of transport and logistics business.
They were allegedly found to be involved in the movement of taxable goods without proper documentation in violation of the provisions of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, it said.
Based on intelligence inputs, teams from the GST Intelligence and Enforcement Wing conducted surprise inspections at the Az

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Electronic Credit Ledger blocking orders quashed for violating natural justice under Rule 86A CGST Rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed orders blocking petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger and provisionally attaching bank account under Rule 86A of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The court held that respondents failed to provide pre-decisional hearing, violating principles of natural justice, and lacked independent cogent reasons to believe as required under Rule 86A. The impugned orders relied on borrowed satisfaction from enforcement authority reports, which is impermissible in law. The court found the orders illegal and arbitrary for non-compliance with mandatory procedural and substantive requirements. Respondents were directed to immediately unblock petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger upon receipt of the order to enable filing of returns. Petition allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

DRI officials seize over 92 lakh illegally-smuggled cigarettes of foreign origin worth Rs. 18.2 crore in Chennai
GST
Dated:- 24-6-2025

In continuation of its fight against illegal smuggling, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in a major operation, has seized 92.1 lakh sticks of foreign-origin cigarettes valued at approximately Rs. 18.2 crore on 23.06.2025.
Acting on a specific intelligence that cigarettes of foreign origin are being smuggled into India from Dubai under the guise of Bathroom and sanitary fittings”, the officers of DRI, Chennai Zonal Unit held a container bound to J-Matadee FTWZ.
Detailed examination revealed that the goods in the said container were mis-declared and it contained 92.1 lakh sticks of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) can be restored upon compliance with statutory requirements
Case-Laws
GST
The HC disposed of the writ petition challenging cancellation of petitioner's GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 for non-filing of returns for six continuous months. The Court held that while the cancellation was legally valid, considering the serious civil consequences, the empowered officer retains authority to restore registration upon compliance with statutory requirements. The Court directed petitioner to approach the concerned authority within two months, furnishing all pending returns and making full payment of tax dues, interest, and late fees. The authority was mandated to consider the restoration application if petitioner complies with proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of CGST Rules, 2017, and pass appropriate orders accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ petition challenging goods detention and tax levy under Section 129(3) CGST Act dismissed for lacking merit
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed petitioner's writ petition challenging detention of goods and levy of tax and penalty under CGST Act. Court held that impugned order demonstrated due application of mind, recorded factual matrix and petitioner's reply, and provided cogent reasons for rejection. No procedural impropriety, manifest illegality, or violation of natural justice principles was established. Authorities acted within statutory powers under Section 129(3) CGST Act with reasonable appreciation of evidence. Court ruled judicial review under Article 226 does not permit reappreciation of evidence when efficacious alternative remedy exists. Petition lacked merit and dismissed, though petitioner granted liberty to pursue statutory appeal under Section 107 CGST Act 2017.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ petition challenging goods detention and tax penalty under Section 129(3) CGST Act dismissed for lacking merit
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging detention of goods and levy of tax and penalty under CGST Act. Court held the impugned order demonstrated due application of mind, proper consideration of factual matrix and petitioner's submissions, with cogent reasons provided. No procedural impropriety, manifest illegality, or violation of natural justice principles established. Authorities acted within statutory powers under Section 129(3) CGST Act with reasonable appreciation of evidence. Court emphasized judicial review under Article 226 does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of factual findings when efficacious alternative remedy exists. Petition found devoid of merit, dismissed with liberty to pursue statutory appeal under Section 107 CGST Act.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Authority violates natural justice by rejecting taxpayer reply without mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) TNGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned orders dated 12.03.2025 for violating principles of natural justice and contravening Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act. The respondent authority rejected the petitioner's reply as unacceptable and confirmed defects without providing mandatory opportunity of hearing required under the statutory provision when adverse decisions are contemplated against taxpayers. The court found the orders procedurally flawed as they failed to comply with natural justice requirements and statutory mandates. The petition was allowed by way of remand, directing the respondent to undertake fresh consideration of the matter while ensuring compliance with due process requirements and providing adequate hearing opportunity to the petitioner before making any adverse determination.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court sets aside GST determination order under Section 73 for violating natural justice principles
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside determination order under Section 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for violating principles of natural justice. Despite respondents' claim of granting hearing opportunity, no notice was served to petitioner indicating such opportunity. Though interim stay was granted by HC, final orders imposing liability were issued immediately after stay expired without court disposal of writ petition. Section 75(4) of CGST Act mandates opportunity of hearing before adverse orders. HC held that respondent should have waited for writ petition disposal and issued fresh notice for hearing after stay expiry. Impugned order violated natural justice principles. Order set aside, respondent directed to pass fresh orders after granting proper hearing opportunity with sufficient notice. Petition allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ petition dismissed on GST interest demand under Section 50(1), penalty challenge allowed through statutory appeal under Section 107
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging GST interest and penalty demands. The petitioner paid disputed tax belatedly, resulting in interest levy under Section 50(1) CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 r/w Rule 88B CGST Rules, 2017, which the Court upheld as non-interferable. Regarding the penalty of Rs. 5,72,052/- imposed under Section 73(9) r/w Section 122(2)(a) CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, the HC granted liberty to challenge through statutory appeal under Section 107, subject to 10% pre-deposit requirement within 30 days. The Appellate Commissioner was directed to consider the appeal without reference to limitation. The Court declined interference on natural justice grounds at writ stage, leaving the penalty issue for appellate adjudication while confirming the interest demand.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner may secure goods release with bank guarantee worth 20% of proposed penalty under Section 122 WBGST/CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC challenged SCN issued under Section 122(1)(xviii) read with Section 35(6) of WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 regarding seizure of goods without recording satisfaction as mandated under Section 67. Petitioner exclusively supplies goods to Ministry of Defence with subsisting work orders for Indian Army. Court directed petitioner may seek goods release by furnishing bank guarantee equivalent to 20% of proposed penalty amount in SCN dated 27th May, 2025. Upon written application with requisite bank guarantee, proper officer must release goods within three working days. Court noted SCN appears issued under Section 122 read with Section 35(6), requiring proceedings under Section 73 or 74. Final decision on SCN restrained without court's leave. Matter listed for July 2025 consideration.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation quashed conditionally after petitioner failed filing returns for six consecutive months
Case-Laws
GST
The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled via Form GST REG-19 due to failure to file returns for six consecutive months. The HC applied the precedent established in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Centre v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, which balanced revenue interests with taxpayer rights. Following this precedent and its recent application in Tvl.Blue Diamond Engineers, the HC directed the petitioner to comply with conditions stipulated in the Suguna Cutpiece Centre decision. Upon compliance with these specified conditions, the impugned cancellation order would be quashed. The writ petition was allowed at the admission stage, providing conditional relief to the petitioner subject to fulfilling the prescribed requirements.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation revoked after non-filing GSTR-3B returns for six months under Section 29
Case-Laws
GST
HC directed CGST Superintendent to revoke petitioner's GST registration cancellation which occurred due to non-filing of GSTR-3B returns for six consecutive months and failure to respond to GSTR-3A notice. Following precedent in Krishanu Borthakur, court held that excluding assessee from GST regime would prevent collection of statutory dues, contrary to revenue interest. HC ordered respondent to intimate outstanding statutory dues to petitioner and restore GST registration upon payment of any outstanding amounts. Writ petition disposed with direction for reconsideration of revocation application and restoration of registration subject to compliance with statutory obligations.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Delhi adopts CBIC circular clarifying GST rate regularization under Section 168 for interpretational doubts
Circulars
GST – States
The Delhi State Tax Department adopted CBIC Circular No. 236/30/2024-GST clarifying the scope of “as is/as is, where is basis” regularization in GST matters. The circular, issued under Section 168 of CGST Act 2017 following GST Council's 54th meeting recommendation, addresses field formation doubts regarding tax regularization where competing rates existed. The clarification establishes that regularization applies when genuine interpretational doubts arose between different GST rates, allowing taxpayers who paid lower rates to treat such payments as full discharge of liability without additional payment obligations. However, those who paid higher rates receive no refunds, and regularization excludes cases where no tax was paid at all. The circular provides three illustrations demonstrating application scenarios involving rate differentials of 5%, 12%, and nil rates, emphasizing that regularization only validates actual payments made at declared rates in filed returns, not non-payment situations.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST adjudication order quashed over building classification as plant under Section 17(5)(d) for input tax credit
Case-Laws
GST
The HC partially allowed the petition challenging GST adjudication proceedings under Section 73 following audit under Section 65 of the GST Act. The primary legal issue concerned interpretation of “plant or machinery” under Section 17(5)(d) regarding whether buildings qualify as “plant” for input tax credit restrictions. The Court quashed the impugned adjudication order dated 28.02.2025 and restored proceedings to the first respondent for fresh consideration, ensuring complete adjudication. The petitioner's deposited 10% of the demand amount was directed to be held by respondents pending conclusion of restored proceedings. The matter was remanded for proper reconsideration of the classification issue.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessment order quashed for denying personal hearing despite valid GST Portal service requiring alternative methods under Section 169
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside assessment order dated 14.08.2024 for violation of natural justice principles where petitioner was denied personal hearing opportunity. Though show cause notice was uploaded on GST Portal constituting valid service, respondent failed to explore alternative service modes under Section 169 GST Act when petitioner remained non-responsive. Court held that officers must utilize other prescribed service methods like RPAD when portal service proves ineffective to avoid empty formalities and multiplicity of litigation. Matter remanded to respondent for fresh consideration conditional upon petitioner depositing 25% of disputed tax amount within four weeks. Petition allowed by way of remand emphasizing effective service requirements over mere procedural compliance.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's Section 128A CGST Amnesty Scheme benefit claim remitted for fresh consideration following Balaji Packaging precedent
Case-Laws
GST
The HC disposed of the petition concerning proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act and entitlement to benefit under the Amnesty Scheme introduced by Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017. Following identical circumstances in Balaji Packaging's case, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the respondent for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law. The petitioner had expressed intention to avail benefits under the Amnesty Scheme provisions of Section 128A of the CGST Act, warranting judicial intervention for proper consideration of the statutory relief mechanism.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST order quashed after payment under protest ruled not admission of liability under Section 74
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed an order under Section 74 of HP GST Act, 2017 imposing interest of Rs. 1,32,34,923/- and penalty of Rs. 1,11,45,134/- on the petitioner for alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit. The court held that payment made 'under protest' cannot constitute admission of liability, as such payment inherently reserves the right to challenge the order while disputing the debt's validity. The HC relied on Black's Law Dictionary definition establishing that 'under protest' payment involves formal dispute of liability while making payment unwillingly. Consequently, the respondent was directed to issue fresh DRC-07 incorporating only the disputed tax amount, enabling the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority. The petition was allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner fails to prove natural justice violation in GST demand proceedings under Section 73
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed petitioner's challenge to order under Section 73 of WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner contended proper officer predetermined outcome by serving Form GST DRC-01A notice before show cause notice, violating natural justice. Court found no irregularity as petitioner received adequate opportunity to respond to show cause before personal hearing was scheduled. Despite petitioner's claim of unawareness due to accountant change, Court noted petitioner continued portal operations and filing returns throughout proceedings. Section 75(4) permits hearing opportunity when adverse decision is contemplated. Petitioner failed to appear for scheduled hearing, thus cannot question the process. No predetermination or natural justice violation established. Petition disposed of without interference to impugned order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =