Goods and Services Tax

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Proceedings under section 74(1) quashed where seller's registration restored and no evidence of fraud, tax evasion or suppression
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed proceedings initiated under section 74(1) of the Act against the petitioner, finding no sustainable basis for fraud or tax-evasion allegations. The court held that restoration of the selling dealer's registration negated any presumption that transactions were with an unregistered dealer; documentary evidence established physical m

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seizure of goods unlawful where valid uncancelled e-way bill and documents show genuine transport, no intent to evade tax
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that seizure of goods was unlawful where a valid e-way bill accompanied the consignment and remained uncancelled, demonstrating genuineness of transport documents and negating any demonstrable intent to evade tax. The absence of the shipping address as an additional place of business and omission of a consignor's official signature on the de

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Initiation under s.130 on survey-noted excess stock unsustainable; s.35(6) and ss.73/74 govern tax on unaccounted goods
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that initiation of proceedings under s.130 of the GST Act based solely on alleged excess stock observed during a survey, without physical counting, was unsustainable. The court reiterated that registered persons must maintain accounts under s.35 and that s.35(6) permits determination of tax on unaccounted goods with applicability of ss.73/74 mutat

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Provisional attachment order of 1 Jan 2025 held appealable under Section 107 CGST Act; appeal allowed with pre-deposit
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the impugned provisional attachment order dated 1 January 2025 is an appealable order under Section 107, CGST Act. The court recognised that consolidated show-cause notices spanning multiple periods may be interrogated to establish a pattern of fraudulent ITC availment via fictitious firms, and therefore allowed relief to the Petitioner fo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail granted to accused in alleged Rs.35 crore GST input-tax-credit fraud via fake firms; investigation complete, trial lengthy
Case-Laws
GST
HC granted bail to the applicant accused of alleged GST evasion by purported availment of input tax credit through fabricated firms, involving purported evasion of approximately Rs.35 crore. The court noted the offences are triable by a Magistrate and carry a maximum sentence of five years; investigation is complete and complaint filed. Emphasizin

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail granted to accused in Rs.120 crore embezzlement via fictitious suppliers; release on surety under s.132(1)(i) C.G.S.T. Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the applicant's bail application and ordered release on furnishing appropriate surety. The applicant, accused of embezzling funds exceeding Rs.120 crores through fictitious suppliers to facilitate illegal sales and GST evasion, was held to face a prosecution principally reliant on documentary and electronic evidence, with investigation

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessing authorities exceeded jurisdiction by using Section 73 to tax pre-GST contractor payments based on GSTR-3B/Form-26AS mismatch
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders, holding the assessing authorities exceeded jurisdiction in initiating proceedings under Section 73. On review of original records the court found the petitioner to be a work-contractor awarded contracts by a state agency for the relevant assessment years, and that payments were ef

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Sale of company as going concern in clean state freezes and extinguishes pre-sale dues; claims limited to Section 53 waterfall
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that upon sale of the corporate debtor in liquidation as a going concern on a “clean state” basis, all pre-sale dues stand frozen and are extinguished, with creditors' entitlements confined to the Section 53 waterfall; accordingly liability of Petitioner No.1 for tax, interest and penalty for periods prior to the sale cannot be adjudica

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ dismissed; matter remitted for fresh adjudication subject to 50% deposit of disputed GST under Section 107
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the writ insofar as it sought quashing of the impugned demand without compliance with limitation; noting the period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired, the Court remitted the matter to the Respondent for fresh adjudication. The remand is conditional: the Assessee must deposit 50% of the disputed tax, quantified a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =