Goods and Services Tax

Penalty under s.74 CGST reduced where tax and interest pre-paid; proceedings end on 15% penalty payment
Case-Laws
GST
HC examined levy of penalty under s.74 CGST Act where tax with interest was paid prior to issuance of SCN. HC noted the distinction between s.74(5) and s.74(8), holding that on payment of tax, interest and 15% penalty after notice under s.74(1) read with s.74(3), further proceedings stand terminated. In this case, the petitioner had already discharged tax and interest pursuant to summons, and the subsequent demand-cum-SCN under s.74(1) yielded a maximum penalty of Rs. 19,000/-. HC held that relegating the petitioner to appeal would be unjustified. HC directed that on deposit of 15% of the penalty within four weeks, the impugned order shall stand quashed qua the petitioner alone, with no benefit extended to other noticees. Petition disposed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ challenging DGGI bank account attachment dismissed for concealment; petitioner directed to pursue Rule 159(5) remedy.
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging attachment of the petitioner's bank account by DGGI, holding that the plea of violation of principles of natural justice was untenable. The HC observed that the petitioner had deliberately concealed material facts, including the ongoing DGGI investigation and details of fraudulently availed ITC, despite having full knowledge thereof, thereby disentitling it to discretionary relief under Article 226. The Court noted that the proper statutory remedy was available under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Act, permitting objections to the freezing order before the Department. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-, to be deposited within two weeks with the HC Staff Welfare Fund.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Prior GST deposits overlooked; penalty under S.73 CGST Act to be reconsidered, appeal allowed without further pre-deposit
Case-Laws
GST
HC noted that the Petitioner had deposited over Rs. 2.01 crores prior to issuance of the SCN for GST registration cancellation, and that this crucial aspect was not properly considered by the adjudicating or appellate authority, indicating a lapse in adjudication. HC observed that, in terms of S.73 CGST Act, penalties on the Petitioner's directors may not be sustainable and the penalty on the Petitioner entity requires reconsideration in light of prior payments. As the GST Appellate Tribunal is now functional, HC directed the Petitioner to file an appeal thereagainst by 25.12.2025, to be heard on merits without dismissal for delay and without any further pre-deposit. Petition disposed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Ex parte CGST order set aside; matter remanded on costs to ensure fresh adjudication on merits
Case-Laws
GST
HC addressed a challenge to an ex parte Order-in-Original passed pursuant to show cause notices under the CGST regime, where the petitioner neither replied nor attended the personal hearing, citing serious medical condition of the proprietor. While noting that the petitioner was duly served and granted repeated opportunities, HC accepted that the matter warranted adjudication on merits to uphold principles of natural justice. Following its earlier approach in a similar case, HC remanded the matter conditionally. The impugned Order-in-Original was set aside subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Delhi High Court Bar Association within two weeks. Upon such payment, the adjudicating authority shall reconsider the case afresh. 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

= = = = = = = =

GST demand enhanced beyond SCN set aside for violating Sections 73 and 75(7); fresh action permitted
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the tax and penalty demand under s.73 of the GST Act was illegally enhanced from Rs. 5,11,145.80 in the SCN to Rs. 38,60,604/- in the impugned order, in contravention of s.75(7), which bars adjudication beyond the scope and quantum specified in the SCN. Relying on a prior Division Bench ruling on identical facts, the HC reiterated that absence of proper opportunity, coupled with an excessive demand beyond the SCN, vitiates the adjudication. Finding the impugned orders unsustainable in law, the HC quashed the demand and consequential orders in their entirety. The writ petition filed by M/s X was accordingly allowed, with liberty to the department, if so advised, to proceed strictly in accordance with law and within the limits of the original SCN.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST on manpower supply includes lockdown wage reimbursements; no exemption from labour memo under CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the applicant's supply of manpower to a Govt. space research centre constitutes “manpower recruitment and supply services” and is a taxable supply under the CGST Act. Interim payments made by the recipient to outsourced workers during the COVID-19 lockdown, pursuant to contractual arrangements, form part of the consideration for such taxable services. The subsequent disbursement of the entire amount to workers does not alter the taxability or reduce the taxable value. The office memorandum treating contractual/outsourced staff as “on duty” during lockdown and directing continued payment of wages is a labour-protection measure and does not create any GST exemption. As no specific exemption applies, GST is payable on the full consideration, and the applicant must regularise the corresponding tax liability.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

SCN under GST Notifications 9/2023 and 56/2023 quashed due to internal lapse, matter remanded for hearing
Case-Laws
GST
HC, dealing with a challenge to extension of limitation for issuance of SCN and vires of N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax and N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax, noted that the issue of validity of the notifications is pending before SC in a related batch. In the present matter, the Petitioner, a stock broker, asserted that the SCN dated 30.05.2024 never came to its knowledge due to an internal lapse by its accountant, resulting in no reply being filed. HC held that, in these circumstances, neither the SCN nor the consequent demand can be sustained. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after personal hearing on a fixed date. Petition disposed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ITC allowed only on June 2022 rent under S.16(4); invoices breaching R.47 invalid, S.97(2) limits scope
Case-Laws
GST
AAR held that the applicant is entitled to avail ITC only on GST paid on rent for June 2022, subject to compliance with the time limit prescribed under S.16(4) CGST Act. It was determined that invoices pertaining to periods when the landlord was unregistered do not constitute valid tax invoices for ITC, as the supplier lacked registration and such invoices were also issued beyond the time limit stipulated in R.47 CGST Rules. Consequently, ITC on those invoices is inadmissible. On the query whether availment of such ITC would invite audit or departmental scrutiny, AAR declined to answer, holding it outside the scope of S.97(2) CGST Act.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seizure of Transporter's Vehicle for E-Way Bill Mismatch Quashed; No Evidence of Tax Evasion Under Section 129 GST
Case-Laws
GST
HC examined the seizure of a vehicle and goods due to a mismatch between the consignment and the e-way bill, where the petitioner acted solely as a transporter. HC noted that authorities had already held the goods to belong to the consignor and released them, and no finding existed that the petitioner was engaged in purchase or sale of goods or had any intent to evade tax. The discrepancy was explained as a human error by labourers during loading. In absence of adverse material against the transporter, HC held that seizure of the vehicle and initiation of proceedings were unsustainable. The impugned order was quashed and the petition allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty for e-way bill lapse restricted to s.129(1)(a) U.P. GST; wrong s.129(1)(b) order quashed and recomputation directed
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that, in a case of goods transported without an accompanying e-way bill, only penalty under s.129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 was legally permissible. The Adjudicating Authority had erroneously imposed penalty under s.129(1)(b). Relying on its earlier precedent in a similar matter, HC found no other factual dispute warranting further pleadings and, with consent of parties, decided the writ at admission stage. The impugned order dated 25.10.2025 was quashed and set aside. Revenue authorities were directed to recompute and impose penalty strictly in accordance with s.129(1)(a) within three weeks. The writ petition filed by M/s X against State authorities was accordingly disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Search and seizure SCNs upheld; Section 61 objections and procedural defects to be raised before adjudicating authority
Case-Laws
GST
HC upheld the validity of the impugned SCNs issued pursuant to search and seizure conducted at the premises of the petitioner, despite allegations of irregular seizure without a proper panchanama and inadequate documentation. The HC held that objections regarding non-compliance with statutory provisions, including Section 61, procedural infirmities in search and seizure, and alleged denial of adequate opportunity, are matters to be urged before the adjudicating authority in the pending proceedings. Reiterating its earlier order permitting withdrawal of a prior writ to pursue assessment remedies, the HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petitions, granting the petitioner liberty to raise all factual and legal grounds in its reply to the SCNs.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 54 CGST and Rule 89(1A) timelines directory; Centre cannot retain IGST wrongly paid under bona fide mistake
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that Section 54 CGST Act and Rule 89(1A) CGST Rules are directory, not mandatory, for refund of tax wrongly paid under a bona fide mistake regarding the nature of supply. Since payment of IGST to Central authorities and subsequent correct payment to State authorities were undisputed, retention of IGST by the Centre would offend Article 265 and principles of restitution and unjust enrichment. HC set aside the impugned orders of respondent no. 3 rejecting the refund claim as time-barred, and expressly held that the refund application was within limitation. The matter was remanded to respondent no. 3 to reconsider and pass a reasoned order on the merits of the refund claim in accordance with law, within a stipulated period. The writ petition was allowed by way of remand.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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 out of ten witnesses and no delay attributable to the accused. Noting the constitutional mandate of Article 21 and the procedural safeguard against undue trial delay, as well as the absence of recorded reasons by the trial court justifying continued incarceration, HC invoked Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. and directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail, subject to usual conditions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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 petitioners correctly claimed refund of unutilised ITC under s.54(3) r/w Rule 89(1)/89(4). The authorities' reliance on the Circular with retrospective effect and exercise of suo motu review under s.107(2) to deny or revisit sanctioned refunds was held unsustainable. The HC allowed the petitions, restoring the refund claims of unutilised ITC.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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 that amounts deposited in DRC-03 during a search, purportedly under S.74(5), were not voluntary payments and therefore could validly be claimed as refund under S.54. The HC quashed the impugned deficiency memos dated 20.05.2025 and 21.05.2025, and directed the respondents to process the petitioner's refund claims for the DRC-03 payments and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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 the disputed tax of Rs. 6,33,640/-, from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within the same period. On such compliance, the 1st respondent/Appellate Authority was mandated to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits, without rejecting it on the ground of limitation. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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 matter to the Assessing Authority for de novo consideration. The remand was made conditional upon the petitioner-assessee depositing a quantified portion of the disputed tax, between 25% and 100%, as determined with reference to the delay in approaching HC. The Assessing Authority was directed to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law. With these directions and conditions, the writ petition was disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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 disputed tax, as confirmed in the rectification order dated 11.09.2024, in cash from the Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receipt of the order. The Petitioner shall, within the same period, file a detailed reply with supporting documents to the GST DRC-01 show cause notice dated 02.05.2024, treating the assessment order dated 08.07.2024 as an addendum. Petition disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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 the Court can mandate its implementation within a particular deadline or paralyse routine administrative transfers pending such implementation. The Revenue's undertaking that the online transfer guidelines and supporting software will be fully implemented within six months was recorded. In view of this undertaking, the impugned interdiction by the Tribunal was set aside to the extent it obstructed general transfers, and the Department was permitted to proceed with transfers in accordance with existing norms. The original petition was accordingly disposed of without further directions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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, and that GST credit was claimed thereafter on 13-01-2025, HC held that no prima facie misconduct warranting suspension was made out. Consequently, the suspension order dated 23-08-2025 issued by the Commissioner, State Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow was quashed. However, HC clarified that the authorities are at liberty to initiate and conclude a departmental inquiry within four months. 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

= = = = = = = =

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-wheelers, accompanied the goods. The Revenue failed to produce any material indicating prior movement of vehicles with identical identification numbers or any contrary GPS data, while the GPS report supported delivery at the declared destination. As the goods were new, unregistered two-wheelers that could not be lawfully plied on road and there was no evidence of misuse or diversion, the proceedings under detention and seizure were held unsustainable. All consequential demands and penalties were set aside.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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 subsist thereafter. Noting that counsel for the revenue could not confirm lifting of the attachments post-expiry, the HC declared that such provisional attachment cannot continue beyond one year and accordingly set aside the attachments of the two accounts. The writ petition was allowed in part.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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 the extent it retrospectively applies restrictions introduced by the Notification dated 13.07.2022 to all refund applications filed on or after 18.07.2022. The HC found no distinguishing circumstance or justification advanced by the revenue. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed, and the proceedings initiated vide notice dated 04.06.2024 were quashed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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 Constitution, the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and the U.P. GST Act, 2017, the HC reaffirmed that the concerned bye-laws are without statutory authority. Consequently, the impugned demand notice and consequential recovery certificate seeking advertisement tax for the period 13.02.2018 to 12.02.2019 were quashed. The writ petition filed by the assessee was allowed in entirety.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =