Author: admin_gst

Ex parte CGST order set aside; matter remanded on costs to ensure fresh adjudication on merits
Case-Laws
GST
HC addressed a challenge to an ex parte Order-in-Original passed pursuant to show cause notices under the CGST regime, where the petitioner neither replied nor attended the personal hearing, citing serious medical condition of the proprietor. While noting that the petitioner was duly served and granted repeated opportunities, HC accepted that the matter warranted adjudication on

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

SCN under GST Notifications 9/2023 and 56/2023 quashed due to internal lapse, matter remanded for hearing
Case-Laws
GST
HC, dealing with a challenge to extension of limitation for issuance of SCN and vires of N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax and N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax, noted that the issue of validity of the notifications is pending before SC in a related batch. In the present matter, the Petitioner, a stock broker, asserted that the SCN dated 30.05.2024 never came to its knowledge due to an i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST demand enhanced beyond SCN set aside for violating Sections 73 and 75(7); fresh action permitted
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the tax and penalty demand under s.73 of the GST Act was illegally enhanced from Rs. 5,11,145.80 in the SCN to Rs. 38,60,604/- in the impugned order, in contravention of s.75(7), which bars adjudication beyond the scope and quantum specified in the SCN. Relying on a prior Division Bench ruling on identical facts, the HC reiterated that absence of proper opportu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST on manpower supply includes lockdown wage reimbursements; no exemption from labour memo under CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the applicant's supply of manpower to a Govt. space research centre constitutes “manpower recruitment and supply services” and is a taxable supply under the CGST Act. Interim payments made by the recipient to outsourced workers during the COVID-19 lockdown, pursuant to contractual arrangements, form part of the consideration for such taxable services

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ITC allowed only on June 2022 rent under S.16(4); invoices breaching R.47 invalid, S.97(2) limits scope
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that the applicant is entitled to avail ITC only on GST paid on rent for June 2022, subject to compliance with the time limit prescribed under S.16(4) CGST Act. It was determined that invoices pertaining to periods when the landlord was unregistered do not constitute valid tax invoices for ITC, as the supplier lacked registration and such invoices were also issu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seizure of Transporter's Vehicle for E-Way Bill Mismatch Quashed; No Evidence of Tax Evasion Under Section 129 GST
Case-Laws
GST
HC examined the seizure of a vehicle and goods due to a mismatch between the consignment and the e-way bill, where the petitioner acted solely as a transporter. HC noted that authorities had already held the goods to belong to the consignor and released them, and no finding existed that the petitioner was engaged in purchase or sale of goods or had any intent

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 54 CGST and Rule 89(1A) timelines directory; Centre cannot retain IGST wrongly paid under bona fide mistake
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that Section 54 CGST Act and Rule 89(1A) CGST Rules are directory, not mandatory, for refund of tax wrongly paid under a bona fide mistake regarding the nature of supply. Since payment of IGST to Central authorities and subsequent correct payment to State authorities were undisputed, retention of IGST by the Centre would offend Article 265 and princip

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail granted under Section 480(6) BNSS for accused in Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(l) 2017 Act case after prolonged custody delay
Case-Laws
GST
HC, exercising jurisdiction under Section 480(6) B.N.S.S., allowed the bail application of A v. State in an economic offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(l) of the 2017 Act, a non-bailable offence triable by Magistrate. The petitioner had been in custody since 03.06.2024 and cognizance was taken on 01.02.2025, with only partial examination of three

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Search and seizure SCNs upheld; Section 61 objections and procedural defects to be raised before adjudicating authority
Case-Laws
GST
HC upheld the validity of the impugned SCNs issued pursuant to search and seizure conducted at the premises of the petitioner, despite allegations of irregular seizure without a proper panchanama and inadequate documentation. The HC held that objections regarding non-compliance with statutory provisions, including Section 61, procedural infirmities in sea

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty for e-way bill lapse restricted to s.129(1)(a) U.P. GST; wrong s.129(1)(b) order quashed and recomputation directed
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that, in a case of goods transported without an accompanying e-way bill, only penalty under s.129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 was legally permissible. The Adjudicating Authority had erroneously imposed penalty under s.129(1)(b). Relying on its earlier precedent in a similar matter, HC found no other factual dispute warranting further plead

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Supervisory power under Article 227 limits tribunal from halting GST general transfers or forcing online policy deadline
Case-Laws
GST
HC, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227, held that the Tribunal exceeded its remit by interdicting general transfers in the GST Department and effectively compelling implementation of the Government's online general transfer policy within a fixed time-frame. HC observed that while the policy objective is laudable, neither the Tribunal nor

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Exporters entitled to ITC refund under s.54(3) GST; Rule 89(4A) and Circular 172 held inapplicable
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the petitioners, being 100% EOUs making zero-rated supplies under LUT, are exporters and not “deemed exporters” under s.2(39) r/w s.147 of the GST Act. Since their suppliers treated supplies as regular B2B and did not follow deemed export procedure or claim deemed export benefits, para 2.2 of Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST and Rule 89(4A) are inapplicable. The peti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ allowed; assessment and rectification orders quashed, matter remanded for de novo consideration subject to partial tax deposit
Case-Laws
GST
HC entertained the writ petition challenging rejection of a rectification application and the consequential assessment order, noting that the petitioner had failed to respond to the pre-assessment notice. Applying its consistent view in analogous matters, HC quashed the impugned assessment and rectification rejection orders and remitted the ma

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rectification under Section 161 CGST set aside for breach of natural justice, matter remanded with 50% deposit condition
Case-Laws
GST
HC considered the challenge to a rectification order adversely affecting the taxpayer without adequate adherence to principles of natural justice. HC set aside the impugned rectification and assessment orders and remitted the matter to the respondent authority for fresh adjudication. This remand is conditional upon the Petitioner depositing 50% of the di

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund claim under S.54 CGST upheld; deficiency memos quashed, DRC-03 search deposits not treated as voluntary payments
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the deficiency memos rejecting the petitioner's refund applications under S.54 CGST Act were legally untenable. The HC found the refund applications complete and accompanied by requisite documents, and ruled that a deficiency memo can be issued only where an application is incomplete or deficient. It further held

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal to be heard if taxpayer deposits admitted dues plus 25 percent of disputed GST within 30 days
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the appeal had been rejected on limitation, though partial tax liability was admitted. Total tax demand was Rs. 9,99,558/-, of which the petitioner had accepted Rs. 3,65,918/- but deposited only Rs. 99,956/-. HC directed the petitioner to deposit the balance admitted tax of Rs. 2,65,962/- within 30 days, and additionally to deposit Rs. 1,58,410/-, being 25% of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advisory for Furnishing of Bank Account Details as per Rule 10A
GST
Dated:- 20-11-2025

Dear Taxpayers,
As per Rule 10A, taxpayers (except those registered under TCS, TDS, or suo-moto registrations) must furnish their bank account details within 30 days of grant of registration or before filing details of outward supplies in GSTR-1 or IFF, whichever is earlier.
The changes with respect to Rule 10A will be implemented on the GST Portal soon. Therefore, the taxpayers who have not yet

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

No quashing under Section 482 CrPC for bogus ITC fraud under Section 132 CGST and related offences
Case-Laws
GST
HC, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., declined to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings arising from alleged wrongful availment and utilisation of ITC through bogus invoices, attracting offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act, Section 11 of the CST Act, and Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The Court noted that investigation is complete, a final report

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E-way bill expiry alone not proof of tax evasion; GST detention, seizure under Section 129 held invalid
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee and quashed the detention and seizure orders passed under GST law. The HC held that mere expiry of the e-way bill, in the facts of the case, did not establish any intention to evade tax, particularly when all other requisite documents, including tax invoice mentioning specific engine and body numbers of the two-wheel

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advertisement tax bye-laws struck down as ultra vires after 101st Amendment and U.P. GST Act, 2017; demands quashed
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that, pursuant to the 101st Constitutional Amendment and enforcement of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, the State Legislature lacks legislative competence to levy advertisement tax under the impugned municipal bye-laws. Relying on a co-ordinate Bench decision, which had already declared similar advertisement tax provisions ultra vires Article 265 of the Const

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Provisional bank account attachment under Sections 83(1), 83(2) CGST, Rule 159 quashed for exceeding one-year limit
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the provisional attachment of two of the petitioner's bank accounts under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act had exceeded the statutory one-year limit prescribed in Section 83(2), read with Rule 159 of the CGST Rules. As the attachments, effected via Form GST DRC-22 dated 11.11.2024, had “outlived” the permissible duration, they could not legally

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST GSTR-1 upload mistake treated as bona fide, rectification allowed to restore blocked input tax credit
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the petitioner had committed a bona fide error by uploading the GSTIN of the Kerala branch of R-5 instead of its Chennai (Tamil Nadu) branch in GSTR-1, which prevented R-4 from availing Input Tax Credit. Relying on analogous precedents, HC observed that where no revenue loss occurs and the mistake is inadvertent, technicalities should not obstruct legitima

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Suspension of State Tax Officer quashed; no prima facie misconduct under U.P. Govt Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999
Case-Laws
GST
HC examined the legality of the suspension of the petitioner, a State Tax Officer, under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Considering that the petitioner had submitted an adverse investigation report against the concerned firm on 03-12-2024, which formed the basis of the subsequent show cause notice dated 05-12-2024, a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Circular on inverted duty refunds under Section 54(3) held ultra vires for retrospective application of 2022 restrictions
Case-Laws
GST
The HC adjudicated writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Clause 2 of Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 issued under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning refund of unutilised input tax credit under the inverted duty structure. Concurring with the view of another HC, it held that the Circular is ultra vires to th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Detention and seizure upheld where no e-way bill produced before movement; later generation doesn't cure defect
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the detention and seizure order of goods where no e-way bill was produced prior to commencement of movement; subsequent generation of the e-way bill after interception did not cure the defect. The court held that non-production of the e-way bill at the relevant time justified detention and seizure under the statutory schem

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =