Goods and Services Tax

Regular bail denied for Rs. 358 crores GST fraud involving fraudulent input tax credits and economic offences
Case-Laws
GST
DSC denied regular bail to the applicant charged with fraudulent availment and passing of ineligible input tax credits constituting economic offences. The court determined that economic offences affecting public interest require stringent approach given their impact on the country's financial health. With GST evasion totaling Rs. 358.77 crores and ongoing investiga

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessment order quashed for lack of proper notice violating natural justice principles only one valid order per period
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed an ex-parte assessment order dated 02.07.2024 passed without serving proper notice to the petitioner, finding it wholly without jurisdiction and a nullity due to violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that only one operative assessment order can subsist for the same assessment period. A subsequent assessment order dated

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Accused granted bail in GST fraud case involving fake firms and illegal input tax credit claims
Case-Laws
GST
DSC granted bail to accused charged with GST fraud involving creation of multiple fake firms and fictitious transactions to claim illegal input tax credit. Despite prosecution's allegations of complex fraud scheme, court found accused posed no flight risk as no summons were issued after protection withdrawal. Accused remained in custody for 57 days while complaint filing deadlin

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 79 GST notice quashed for improper service to wrong branch instead of actual debtor
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed a notice issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on procedural grounds. The notice was improperly addressed to the Branch Manager of the respondent-bank at Gurugram rather than to the petitioner directly. The petitioner contended that no bank account existed at Gurugram, with the relevant account being at Mulund Branch, and denied

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Anticipatory bail denied in GST evasion case due to non-cooperation with investigation and witness influence attempts
Case-Laws
GST
DSC dismissed the anticipatory bail application in a GST evasion case involving allegations of fraud and willful suppression of facts. Despite interim protection granted to the accused and SC stay on show cause notice proceedings, the court found the accused failed to demonstrate bona fides by not voluntarily approaching the investigating agency after multi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) can be restored despite time limits through compliance with Rule 22
Case-Laws
GST
HC disposed of writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) for non-filing of returns exceeding six months. Court held that despite elapsed time limit for revocation application, petitioner may approach empowered officer within two months to seek restoration by furnishing all pending returns and making full payment of ta

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty under Section 129(3) GST Act quashed as mens rea required for imposition, not mere procedural lapses
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, ruling that mens rea is sine qua non for penalty imposition. The petitioner generated e-way bill after detention, with tax already paid, demonstrating no intent to evade tax. Court held that authorities cannot presume tax evasion based solely on procedural lapses such as expired e-w

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation quashed due to violation of natural justice and lack of reasoned order
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the GST registration cancellation order and penalty imposed on the petitioner for non-filing of returns from April 2023 to February 2025. The court held that the administrative authority's rejection of the petitioner's delay condonation application violated principles of natural justice by failing to provide reasons or opportunity of hearing. Emphasizing that

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST refund applications allowed to be re-filed after portal failed to show deficiency notices under Section 54
Case-Laws
GST
The HC disposed of a writ petition seeking direction for processing GST refund applications filed in form GSTRFD 01 for multiple tax periods from February 2020 to March 2023. The court acknowledged that while proper officers identified deficiencies in the applications, these deficiencies were not reflected in the portal's view site, preventing the petitioner from

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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, aut

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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 exchan

= = = = = = = =

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 p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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 reco

= = = = = = = =

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, establish

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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 de

= = = = = = = =

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 th

= = = = = = = =

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 la

= = = = = = = =

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 res

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =