Goods and Services Tax

Input tax credit denied for late return filing beyond Section 39 deadline despite pandemic conditions
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the petitioner's claim for input tax credit despite non-filing of returns under Section 39 of WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 within prescribed time limits. Although Covid-19 pandemic prevailed during 2020-21 and Supreme Court extended limitation periods for appeals and proceedings, the legislature deliberately chose not to extend the return filing deadline under Section 39 beyond November 30, 2021, evidenced by subsequent insertion of Section 16(5). Court held that since constitutional validity of the provision was unchallenged and legislature was conscious of pandemic situation yet maintained the deadline, petitioner's contention for benefit of input tax credit could not be accepted. Petition dismissed for failure to comply with statutory filing requirements.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Impugned order set aside, matter remitted for fresh reconsideration under Section 168A and 73 of CGST/KGST Act 2017
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to respondent No.5 for fresh reconsideration following subsequent developments where proceedings against the petitioner were dropped for tax period 2020-21. The court found the impugned notifications dated 28.12.2023 and 29.12.2023 required examination regarding their validity under Section 168A read with Section 73 of CGST/KGST Act, 2017, and applicability of Circular No. 219/13/2024-GST. The petition was allowed by way of remand, directing respondent No.5 to reconsider the matter afresh within stipulated timeframe in accordance with law, bearing in mind the Form GST DRC-05 order dated 28.02.2025.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appellate authority wrongly rejected CGST appeal as time-barred when system malfunction prevented timely filing under Section 107
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed the appellate authority's order rejecting petitioner's appeal as time-barred under CGST Act. Petitioner attempted filing appeal within statutory period under Section 107 but was prevented by system malfunction that rejected appeals where demanded tax was already paid. Despite petitioner's protest payment and timely filing attempt, authorities failed to address technical impediment. Court held denial of statutory remedy was attributable solely to respondents' defective system, not petitioner's conduct. Appellate authority erred in mechanically applying time limitation without considering circumstances preventing timely submission. HC directed restoration of appeal and consideration on merits, treating it as timely filed, recognizing petitioner's right to appeal remains despite tax payment under protest.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Investigation proceedings for fake input tax credit cannot be quashed despite alleged procedural deficiencies in GST cases
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed petitioners' challenge to investigation proceedings concerning large-scale tax evasion through fraudulent input tax credit under HPGST/CGST Act. The court held that Cr.P.C provisions apply to GST Act proceedings absent contrary provisions, citing Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India. Petitioners' contention that investigation was improper because officials failed to contact Delhi GST authorities was rejected. The court found that discovering non-existent entities at invoice addresses sufficiently established prima facie case of fake invoices. Following Mukesh Singh precedent, the court ruled investigation validity is not vitiated merely because departmental officials conducted it. The HC emphasized that while exercising inherent power, courts examine prima facie cases without evaluating evidence creditworthiness, which remains trial court's domain. Consequently, the complaint could not be quashed based on alleged investigative deficiencies.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST refund claim allowed despite missing Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate when Chartered Accountant certificate provided
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petition challenging rejection of GST refund claim for unutilized input tax credit. Petitioner sought refund but authorities rejected the claim for non-submission of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate as mandated by CBIC Circular. Petitioner submitted Chartered Accountant certificate evidencing receipt of convertible foreign exchange for exported services, citing technical inability to access Form GST RFD-08 on portal. HC relied on Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v Mangal Textile Mills holding CA certificates constitute authentic documents requiring consideration by authorities. Court directed respondent-authorities to process refund application without insisting on FIRC requirement, accepting CA certificate as sufficient proof of foreign exchange realization. Impugned order quashed and set aside.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner entitled to Rs. 3,90,762 VAT refund despite not transitioning credit to GST under Section 174(2)(c)
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that petitioner was entitled to refund of Rs. 3,90,762 representing unadjusted unutilized input tax credit under VAT Act despite not carrying forward such credit under GST regime. Court found that Section 174(2)(c) of GST Act preserved rights acquired under repealed VAT Act. Since mandatory assessment period under Section 34(2) of VAT Act had expired and petitioner proved compliance with disposal requirements under Section 11(3) read with Rule 15(6) of VAT Rules, respondent authority was directed to process refund within twelve weeks. Petition allowed, establishing that failure to transition credit to GST regime does not extinguish entitlement to VAT refund where statutory conditions are satisfied.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Vehicle confiscation order quashed under Section 130 for invalid WhatsApp notice service violating statutory requirements
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed confiscation order under Section 130 of the Act of 2017 for procedural non-compliance. Petitioner's vehicle was detained and confiscated without proper notice as mandated by statute. Respondents served notice via WhatsApp, which constituted invalid service under Section 169, as such practice was only permitted during COVID-19 pandemic. Court found serious procedural lacuna in confiscation proceedings, noting that valid notice to interested parties and owners is jurisdictional requirement. Following precedent from Gujarat HC Division Bench in Lakshay Logistics case, proceedings were deemed without jurisdiction due to non-service of statutory notice. Matter remanded to competent authority for fresh consideration with proper procedural compliance. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HC sets aside GST summary notices for violating natural justice under Section 73 CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the summary of show cause notice dated 08.05.2024 and summary of order dated 30.08.2024 for violating principles of natural justice. The respondent authorities issued summaries without proper SCN under Section 73(1) of CGST Act, 2017 and without passing orders under Section 73(9). Following the precedent established in Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd., the court found similar procedural violations where authorities incorrectly assumed that attaching tax determination to summary SCN constituted valid notice. The court granted liberty to respondent authorities to initiate de novo proceedings under Section 73 if deemed appropriate for the relevant financial year, ensuring proper procedural compliance while addressing the underlying tax issues.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CBIC clarifies jurisdictional authorities for review, revision and appeals of Common Adjudicating Authority orders under Sections 107-108
Circulars
GST
CBIC issued Circular No. 250/07/2025-GST clarifying jurisdictional authorities for review, revision, and appeals regarding orders passed by Common Adjudicating Authority (CAA) on DGGI show cause notices. Under CGST Act Sections 107-108, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under whom CAA is posted serves as reviewing and revisional authority. Appeals lie before Commissioner (Appeals) within corresponding territorial jurisdiction per notification 02/2017. The same Principal Commissioner/Commissioner represents department in appeal proceedings and may appoint subordinate officers for filing departmental appeals. Reviewing/revisional authorities may seek DGGI comments before deciding on CAA orders, ensuring uniform procedural compliance across all adjudication matters.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Ex-parte GST assessment challenged; stay of recovery granted on ten percent pre-deposit until Tribunals constituted
Case-Laws
GST
The HC disposed of a writ application challenging an ex-parte assessment order for violation of natural justice principles covering the period 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019. Following precedent established in a coordinate bench decision, the court directed that upon payment of ten percent of the disputed tax amount, the petitioner would be entitled to stay of recovery until GST Tribunals are constituted and an appeal is filed within the prescribed timeframe. Both parties agreed that the substantive issues could be agitated before the Tribunal once established. The court noted that while pre-deposit requirements had been reduced to ten percent, this reduction was only effective from 01.11.2024, and GST Tribunals remained unconstituted with no possibility of filing appeals before that date. The application was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition to quash CGST Section 132(6) proceedings for fraudulent ITC availment dismissed due to prima facie evidence
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petitioner's criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings under Section 132(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 for fraudulent ITC availment. The court found that statements on record revealed the petitioner actively managed GST filings and invoice generation for multiple entities, including bogus invoices without actual goods movement, establishing prima facie involvement in the fraudulent scheme. The challenge to summons validity failed as the cited instruction was issued after the summons in question, precluding retrospective application. The court held that adjudication based solely on investigating officer statements and existing departmental penalty were matters for trial determination. Applying Section 482 Cr.P.C. principles, the HC declined premature interference given incomplete contested facts requiring full examination before the trial court.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ petition dismissed as statutory appeal under Section 107 CGST Act available for Section 74 order
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 74(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 for alleged willful suppression or fraud in tax payment. The petitioner contended that Section 74 was inapplicable as the mistake was rectified through returns and reconciliation statements before proceedings commenced, and argued that the show-cause notice failed to specify circumstances warranting Section 74 invocation. The HC held that since the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the petitioner must exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the court in writ jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of without considering merits, directing the petitioner to pursue available statutory appellate remedies instead of seeking extraordinary writ relief.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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 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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =