Author: admin_gst

Partial relief: penalty of Rs.6,05,17,933 set aside for failure to apply Sections 74, 75 and improper use of Section 122
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the petition in part, holding that the impugned orders issued by the respondents were illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction insofar as they imposed and confirmed a penalty of Rs. 6,05,17,933/-. The Court found that the respondents failed to apply Sections 74 and 75 of the KGST Act and improperly invoked Section 122, resulting in a pe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Ex parte order set aside after email notices landed in junk; matter remitted for fresh consideration under Section 73(9)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the petition, holding that principles of natural justice were violated because the petitioner did not receive notices sent to an email that landed in the junk folder, resulting in an ex parte order. Accepting the petitioner's assertion of bona fide inability and sufficient cause to file replies, the court set aside the impugned order dated

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Initial appeal rejection for missing mandatory pre-deposit upheld; belated appeal time-barred; restore appeal if 25% cash deposit within 30 days
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petitions subject to conditions: the Appellate Authority's initial rejection of an appeal for failure to make the mandatory pre-deposit was upheld as valid, and a subsequent belated appeal was held time-barred; res judicata did not apply because the first appeal was not an appeal in law. The petitions are

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s.73 KGST adjudication quashed for same period; ex parte orders set aside and matters remanded for fresh hearings
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petition, finding violation of the principles of natural justice due to denial of adequate opportunity. The court quashed the multiple adjudication orders issued under s.73 of the KGST Act for the same tax period as impermissible and remitted that claim to the respondents for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The HC also set aside ex pa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ held premature; petitioner directed to pursue statutory remedy under Section 107; Section 67, 69, 73, 74 procedures clarified
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the writ petition and held it premature and not maintainable, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 107 rather than relief under Article 226. The court recorded that where a proper officer (not below Joint Commissioner) has reasons to believe under Section 67 of suppression or evasion, he may inspect

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Detention and penalty under Sec.129 CGST Act invalid for lack of Sec.129(3) adjudicatory order; full refund with 9% interest
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the petition and directed respondents to refund within two months the full penalty paid by the petitioner, with interest at 9% p.a. from payment date until refund, holding the detention and levy under Sec.129 CGST Act invalid insofar as no adjudicatory order was passed by the competent officer pursuant to Sec.129(3) of the Tripura SGST

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Order set aside for breach of natural justice; mandatory personal oral hearing under Section 75 required; matter remanded
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the impugned order dated 6 February 2025 was vitiated by breach of the statutory rules of natural justice, insofar as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity for personal oral hearing after service of a show-cause notice and filing of a written reply; under Section 75 the rights to submit a written reply and to an oral hearing are di

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

File GST exemption and cancellation proof under Chapter 10 HSN within 10 days; bank to decide in one month
Case-Laws
GST
HC directed the petitioner to file, within 10 days, a detailed representation with all requisite documents establishing exemption from GST registration pursuant to Chapter 10 of the HSN and confirming cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by the Department. Upon receipt, the respondent bank must decide the representation within one month by issuing a reaso

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation set aside; revival allowed conditionally after compliance, payment of fees, and proper notice flaws highlighted
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration dated 26.08.2024, holding that the sole deficiency-non-uploading of bank account details-was not of such gravity as to warrant cancellation, and that the show-cause notice was vague, failed to specify the alleged defaults or afford a cure period, and lack

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Challenge dismissed; disciplinary authority to complete inquiry and adjudicate misconduct in Assistant Commissioner suspension within three months
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging suspension of the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and declined to adjudicate the merits of alleged negligence in failing to act on an adverse report concerning a fictitious input tax credit claim by a bogus firm. The Court held that disciplinary and fact-finding proceedings fall

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rule 86A permits temporary withholding of ECL ITC when fraud suspected but cannot block debits beyond available ITC balance
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that orders blocking debit from taxpayers' Electronic Credit Ledgers (ECL) beyond the Input Tax Credit (ITC) available at the time are unsustainable and set aside such entries to that extent, allowing the petitioners. The court construed Rule 86A as an emergent, protective power permitting the Commissioner or an authorized officer to tempo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessment orders quashed: Rule 142(1A) requires Form GST DRC-01A notice for periods before 15.10.2020; fresh assessment ordered
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed and set aside the assessment orders dated 28.02.2025 and held that for assessment periods prior to 15.10.2020 the pre-condition of service of notice in Form GST DRC-01A under Rule 142(1A) is mandatory; consequently an assessment made without such notice is invalid. The matter is remitted to the assessing authority to initiate fresh

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition allowed; proceedings under section 74 require recorded fraud finding, penalties under sections 130(3)/122 unsustainable without it
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the petition and set aside the impugned appellate decision to the extent it refused complete relief to the petitioner. The court held that initiation of proceedings under section 74 requires a recorded finding of fraud, mis-statement or suppression of fact with intent to evade tax, which is absent on the record; accordin

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 129 CGST: Penalty and seizure quashed where expired e-way bill due to driver illness showed no mens rea
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders under section 129 of the CGST Act. The court found the transaction to be a bona fide bill-to-ship movement from Maharashtra to Uttar Pradesh, supported by tax invoice, e-way bill and GR, and recognized by the State and its circular. Seizure solely on account of an expired e-way bill did not establish m

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Respondent acknowledged and remitted Rs.3,55,198 ITC benefit, complying with Section 171(1) CGST Act; investigation closed
Case-Laws
GST
AT held that the Respondent acknowledged and did not challenge the DGAP's quantified differential ITC benefit of Rs. 3,55,198/-, voluntarily remitted the same to the recipient and thereby complied with the obligation under Section 171(1) CGST Act, 2017 to pass on ITC benefits by commensurate price reduction. The Tribunal affirmed the DGAP's computation

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Notifications charging compensation cess on MRP struck down as ultra vires Sections 8(2) and 15; valuation must use transaction value
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed writ petitions and quashed the notifications dated 31-03-2023 and 26-07-2023 that directed compensation cess to be levied on MRP rather than transaction value. The Court held the notifications ultra vires Section 8(2) of the Compensation Act and Section 15 of the CGST Act because Section 15 mandates valuation of taxable supply on

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Aggrieved party entitled to all material relied upon and chance to rebut; withholding breached natural justice, produce documents promptly
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the petitioner, as an aggrieved party, was entitled to service of all material relied upon by the authority and to an opportunity to rebut; withholding of such material by the 1st respondent constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice. The court directed respondents to furnish the impugned material on the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Orders set aside; refund under s.54(3) remitted for fresh adjudication; Rule 90(3) validity and limitation to be reconsidered
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned orders dated 23 June 2020 and 18 August 2021 and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on the refund application under s.54(3) of the CGST Act, noting that Rule 90(3)'s validity relative to s.54(3) and the limitation computation issue warranted reconsideration. The proper officer is directed to decide the applicati

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective GST registration cancellation alone cannot deny Input Tax Credit; Section 16 compliance must be assessed on evidence
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside the appellate authority's non-speaking order that denied Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner on supplies from a supplier whose GST registration was cancelled retrospectively. The HC found the appellate order relied solely on retrospective cancellation without addressing documentary evidence tendered by the petitioner (tax in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ITC on HVO/renewable diesel allowed only if Sections 16, 17 and 164 CGST conditions and rules are satisfied
Case-Laws
GST
AAR holds that input tax charged on Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO)/renewable diesel may be claimed as input tax credit by the applicant only if all statutory conditions and restrictions under Section 16 read with Section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017 are satisfied; availability is case-specific and subject to applicable rules framed under Section 164. The Authority affi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Quashed orders; matter remanded for fresh adjudication after authority failed to address denial of GSTR discrepancy
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed and set aside the impugned orders and allowed the petition by way of remand. The court held that the petitioner had specifically denied any discrepancy between Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-2A and that the adjudicating authority failed to address that contention and breached the audi alteram partem principle by not affording an effective hearing.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Impugned notice quashed; matter remanded for fresh CGST/SGST assessment under Section 73 after GSTR-3B discharge
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned notice, impugned order and subsequent communication, holding that the petitioner's shortfall in tax for March-April 2020 had been discharged in the GSTR-3B filed and verified by the revenue authority. The court set aside the impugned proceedings and remanded the matter to the concerned authority for fresh cons

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Partial stay allows debit of 50% of assessed GST liability from blocked electronic credit; negative block reduced under Rule 86(2)/86A
Case-Laws
GST
The HC granted a partial stay of the impugned order blocking electronic credit ledger, limiting relief to 50% of the petitioner's assessed tax liability of Rs. 23,75,480 (i.e., Rs. 11,87,740). The negative blocking of Rs. 48,93,551 remains but is reduced effectively to Rs. 37,05,811 pending further consideration; the petitioner is authorize

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition partly dismissed under Section 161; limited liberty to appeal against penalty under Section 74(9) subject to deposit.
Case-Laws
GST
HC partially dismissed the petition under Section 161 of the respective GST enactments challenging levy of penalty under Section 74(9) for belated payment of admitted SGST/CGST. The petitioner, having discharged the tax on specified dates, was granted limited liberty to file a statutory appeal against the impugned order dated 14.08.2023 within 30 d

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

DRC-01 demand notices set aside for insufficient reasoning; respondent must prove turnover suppression before issuing demand, remand ordered
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned demand notices under DRC-01 and held the reasoning insufficient to sustain a tax demand based solely on alleged suppression in GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and GSTR-9C; the respondents must first adduce cogent evidence of turnover suppression before issuing demand. The Court recognised that disproportionate inward ver

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =