Goods and Services Tax

Cancellation of GST registration quashed for lack of reasons, remanded for fresh consideration under Sections 107 and 108
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed and set aside the impugned cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration certificate and the dismissal of their appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, holding that the cancellation order lacked reasons and violated principles of natural justice. The court also found that the Appellate Authority's dismissal on limitation grounds prevented the respondent from exercising revisional powers under Section 108. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer at the show-cause notice stage for fresh consideration. The petition was disposed of by remand, restoring the petitioner's opportunity to be heard before any adverse action.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Fresh GST proceedings barred; errors must be fixed under Section 161 before initiating new actions
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that initiation of fresh proceedings on an issue already adjudicated is impermissible; any error apparent on the record must be rectified under Section 161 of the GST Act by the department. The petitioner was wrongly subjected to fresh proceedings culminating in the impugned order, which was subsequently rejected. The Court suo motu impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, GST Appeal, as a party and quashed the impugned order. The second respondent was granted liberty to pass an appropriate order incorporating the proposed demand after providing the petitioner a hearing. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advisory for GST Interest Under Section 50(1) Does Not Violate Natural Justice Without Recovery Notice
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the issuance of an advisory for payment of interest under Section 50(1) of the GST Act on self-assessed tax paid after the due date does not violate natural justice principles, as no recovery action has been initiated without notice. The petitioner is liable to pay interest as per Sections 39(7) and 50(1) read with Rules 88B and 88C of the GST Rules. Recovery under Section 79 of the GST Act can only proceed after issuance of intimation in Form GST DRC-01D, serving as a statutory notice under Rule 142B of the GST Rules, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to respond. The advisory merely informs the petitioner of potential liability and does not constitute recovery action. Consequently, the court declined to interfere at this stage, disposing of the petition as the advisory is subject to further proceedings under the GST Act and Rules.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Challenge to summary order not barred by limitation; penalty under Section 122(1) CGST Act subject to appeal under Section 107
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the challenge to the summary order is not barred by limitation. The levy of penalty exceeding the limits prescribed under Section 122(1) of the CGST Act is a matter for appeal and not for writ jurisdiction, especially given the allegations of fraudulent Input Tax Credit availment. The Court referenced prior rulings involving related entities, affirming that writ relief is inappropriate in such cases. The impugned order being appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the petitioners were permitted to file appeals before the Appellate Authority. Appeals filed by 15th July 2025 with the requisite pre-deposit shall not be dismissed on limitation grounds. 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

= = = = = = = =

GST Portal is now enabled to file appeal against waiver order (SPL 07)
GST
Dated:- 16-7-2025

1. Taxpayers who have filed waiver applications in Forms SPL 01/ SPL 02 are receiving orders from the jurisdictional authorities:
                                  Acceptance Order in SPL 05 or
                                  Rejection Order in SPL-07.
2. The GST Portal has now been enabled to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

No GST Claims Allowed Against Resolution Applicant After Plan Approval Under Section 73 CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT, no further claims or liabilities, including GST demands, can be raised against the resolution applicant, as doing so violates the fundamental principles of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code designed to provide a fresh start. The Court quashed the impugned assessment order under Section 73 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 for the 2017-18 tax period and the show cause notice under the same provision for 2018-19, emphasizing that post-approval claims disrupt the resolution process and are illegal. Consequently, the petition was allowed, barring the recovery of GST dues after the resolution plan's sanction.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Summary SCN and Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice Under Section 73(1) of CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that issuance of a summary of show cause notice (SCN) and summary of order without issuing a formal SCN under section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, violated principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Relying on precedent from Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd., the court found that an adverse order cannot be passed without affording the petitioner a chance to be heard. Consequently, the HC set aside the summary SCN dated 12.12.2023 and the summary order dated 22.04.2024. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, reaffirming the necessity of adherence to procedural fairness before passing orders under the CGST Act.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail Granted Under Sections 132(1)(a), (b), (c), (i), and 132(5) of Rajasthan GST Act with Personal Bond Conditions
Case-Laws
GST
The HC granted bail to the accused-petitioner arrested under Sections 132(1)(a), (b), (c), 132(1)(i), and 132(5) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Act, 2017, offenses punishable up to five years. The petitioner, in custody since April 4, 2025, with a charge-sheet filed and no prior similar criminal record, was released considering the likelihood of prolonged trial and relevant Supreme Court precedents. Bail was conditioned on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 100,000 with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, ensuring the petitioner's cooperation and attendance at all trial proceedings.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Dismissal of Section 161 Rectification Petition Is Not Rectification, No Hearing Required Before Dismissal
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that an order dismissing a rectification application under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is an adverse decision but does not constitute rectification requiring adherence to natural justice principles. The third proviso to Section 161 applies only when a positive rectification is made that affects a person. If the rectification petition is dismissed without alteration of the original order, no rectification occurs, and thus, the principles of natural justice, including the right to a personal hearing, are not triggered. The Court affirmed that refusal to rectify is not equivalent to rectification under the statute. Consequently, there is no statutory obligation to grant a hearing before dismissing a rectification petition. The Single Judge's order dismissing the appeal was upheld.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Regular Bail Allowed in Fraudulent ITC Case Under Economic Offences Rules, No Custodial Risk Found
Case-Laws
GST
The HC granted regular bail to the accused charged with availing and passing on fraudulent ITC through bogus supplies, emphasizing that bail is generally the rule in economic offences and its refusal the exception. The Court rejected a blanket denial of bail for grave economic offences, noting the maximum prescribed sentence was five years. Given the documentary and electronic nature of evidence and absence of custodial interrogation, the Court found no risk of witness tampering or influence. Balancing the circumstances, bail was allowed subject to furnishing personal bonds with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court or Duty Magistrate. The petition for bail was accordingly allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Order quashed for denying personal hearing under Section 75(4) of MPGST Act, violating natural justice principles
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 was cryptic, non-speaking, and passed without application of mind, violating the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioners a mandatory personal hearing as required under Section 75(4) of the MPGST Act. This procedural lapse constituted an apparent error of law, vitiating the proceedings. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the authority for a de novo decision after affording the petitioners the opportunity of personal hearing. The petitions were allowed on this basis.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court upholds Section 16(2)(c) CGST/SGST, grants one-month extension for input tax credit claims and error corrections
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ appeal challenging Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Act, which requires an assessee claiming input tax credit to ensure the supplier has paid the output tax. However, the court extended the time granted by the Single Judge by one month for the appellant to claim benefits under two specified circulars and to raise additional issues related to errors in Form GSTR-3B before the adjudicating authority. If the appellant approaches the assessing authority within this extended period highlighting the irregularities, the authority must consider the application under the liberty granted and adjudicate expeditiously. The remainder of the Single Judge's findings were upheld, and the writ appeal was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Registration cancellation quashed for violating natural justice and Article 14 due to no hearing and improper order.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the cancellation of the petitioner's registration was invalid due to violation of natural justice, specifically the failure to grant an opportunity of hearing and non-application of mind. Despite the petitioner submitting a reply, the order incorrectly stated no reply was received, indicating a lack of proper consideration. The court found the impugned order arbitrary and not meeting the standards of Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, the HC quashed the cancellation order and allowed the petition.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rule 86A(3) ITC Block Lifted After 10% Deposit and Timely Appeal Under Section 107 TNGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC directed the respondents to unblock the petitioner's Input Tax Credit (ITC) previously blocked under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules. The Court held that the restriction under Rule 86A(3) ceases upon the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax amount and filing an appeal within the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the TNGST Act. Failure to file the appeal within this period would authorize the respondents to re-block the unutilized ITC. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a mandate to unblock the ITC amounts blocked on specific dates, subject to the petitioner meeting the deposit and appeal conditions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Secured creditors have priority under Section 26E SARFAESI Act over CGST dues for asset recovery
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor possesses priority over the secured asset concerning recovery of dues. Since the secured creditor had not taken possession of the property, the CGST authorities were justified in attaching the asset. Despite the admitted outstanding dues owed to both the CGST authorities and the secured creditor, the court allowed the secured creditor to proceed with enforcement against the secured asset. The ruling clarified that the CGST authorities' right to recover dues is subordinate to the secured creditor's interests, who must maintain transparent accounting and share transaction details with the CGST authorities. The court referred to established precedent confirming that statutory dues under other enactments, such as the MSMED Act, do not confer similar priority rights. 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

= = = = = = = =

Refund of input tax credit limited to tax rate on principal input under Section 54(3)(ii) and Circular 135/05/2020
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the refund of input tax credit is limited to the tax rate applicable on the principal input, specifically crude sunflower oil. Relying on precedent, the Court affirmed that Circular No. 135/05/2020 applies only where input tax credit accumulation arises from a reduction in tax rates. The Court further concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to a refund under Clause (ii) of Sub-section (3) of Section 54 when the input and output supplies are identical. This interpretation aligns with the legal principles established in a prior HC ruling involving a similar issue. Consequently, the petition was allowed, confirming that refund claims must adhere strictly to the statutory and circular provisions governing input tax credit refunds.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Ex-Parte Assessment Order Quashed for Violating Natural Justice Under Section 75(4) BGST Act 2017
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the impugned ex-parte assessment order violated principles of natural justice due to non-compliance with Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, 2017, as no opportunity for personal hearing was granted. The show cause notice failed to specify the date, time, and venue for personal hearing, which is mandatory and cannot be left to the petitioner to choose. Additionally, mere uploading of proceedings on the portal without serving notice through at least two prescribed modes under Section 169 was held insufficient. The court set aside the impugned actions and directed the competent authority to schedule a personal hearing with proper notice specifying date, time, and venue, ensuring adherence to statutory procedural safeguards. The petition was allowed accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ Petition Dismissed on GST Registration Cancellation Under Section 73; Appeal Allowed for Interest and Penalty Issues
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the cancellation of registration under section 73 of the GST Act, 2017. The court held that the petitioner's admission and payment of the tax demand precluded relief on that ground. However, issues regarding interest and penalty may be contested through an appeal under section 107 of the Act, as no justification was shown for bypassing this statutory remedy. The petitioner was permitted to pursue such an appeal in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Orders invalidated due to missing signatures on DRC-07, mandatory under statutory execution rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the impugned orders were vitiated due to the absence of signatures on the DRC-07 document, which is a statutory requirement. The court emphasized that when a statute prescribes a specific mode of execution, compliance with that mode is mandatory, and any deviation renders the act invalid. The lack of signatures on DRC-01 and DRC-07 could not be overridden by explanations in the counter affidavit or notes. Consequently, the petition challenging the orders was disposed of in favor of the petitioner, affirming that non-compliance with statutory formalities invalidates the impugned orders.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition Dismissed for Bypassing Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirement Under Article 226 Jurisdiction
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition, emphasizing the availability of an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy which the petitioner failed to utilize. The court held that the petitioner's attempt to circumvent the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for instituting an appeal was unjustified. The HC reaffirmed the principle that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised to bypass prescribed statutory procedures unless stringent conditions, as established by precedent, are met. The decision aligns with the SC's recent stance that statutory remedies should not be circumvented through constitutional petitions, thereby upholding the integrity of the statutory appeal process.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Failure to allow cross-examination under CGST Act violates natural justice, tax and penalty set aside, case remanded
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the failure to provide the petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were relied upon under the CGST Act violated the principles of natural justice. Cross-examination, as mandated by the Evidence Act and affirmed by the Apex Court, is integral to ensuring a fair hearing. Consequently, the court set aside the levy of tax and penalty and remanded the matter back to the authority for further proceedings, specifically directing that cross-examination be allowed. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition Dismissed on Tax Demand; No Natural Justice Violation Found, Alternative Remedy Available Under Law
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition challenging the impugned order demanding tax, interest, and penalty, holding that the Assessing Authority had duly considered the appellant's reply and provided an opportunity of hearing prior to issuance. The court found no violation of natural justice principles, rejecting the appellant's contention that the order was passed without due process. The appellant was found to have an alternative efficacious remedy and was granted liberty to file an appeal before the designated appellate authority within 30 days of receipt of the order. The appellate authority was directed to adjudicate the appeal in accordance with law within a reasonable timeframe, without raising limitation objections. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal Dismissed for Delay Without Considering Section 14 Exclusion; Audit Held Arbitrary and Quashed
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petitioner's appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 solely on the ground of delay without accounting for the time excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, constituting an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law, allowing the petitioner the benefit of exclusion under Section 14. Additionally, the concurrent adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner (in conducting Audit) despite the pendency of appeal proceedings was held to be arbitrary and unsustainable, violating principles of natural justice and judicial discipline. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was quashed. Petition allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ Petition Dismissed; Appeal Allowed with Pre-Deposit Under Section 107 of GST Act Within 15 Days
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petition for lacking prima facie merit. However, the petitioner was granted leave to file an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within 15 days of receiving the order, subject to making the applicable pre-deposit as mandated by Section 107 of the GST Act. Upon compliance, the Appellate Commissioner was directed to adjudicate the appeal on its merits in due course. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Directive mandates timely record production for audits under Goa GST Act, 2017, per Article 149 compliance rules
Circulars
GST – States
The State Tax Commissioner issued a directive enforcing the timely production of records and information for audit purposes under the Goa GST Act, 2017, following an instruction from the CBIC. This directive mandates all officers to promptly provide requisite documents to the C&AG audit teams to facilitate statutory audits, as empowered by Article 149 of the Constitution. Non-compliance noted in prior audits necessitated this uniform implementation. Officers must also coordinate with taxpayers to obtain documents not held within government records. The instruction aims to ensure transparency and accountability in government revenue administration by obligating field formations to cooperate fully with audit authorities. Failure to comply may result in administrative consequences, underscoring the legal obligation to support audit functions under the applicable GST framework.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =