Writ petition not maintainable when an effective statutory appeal is available under Section 107 of the CGST Act and the alleged breach of natural justice is unsupported by specific pleadings.

ISSUE: Whether the writ petition challenging the adjudication order under the CGST Act was maintainable despite the availability of an effective statutory appellate remedy under Section 107, particularly when the petitioner alleged a violation of natural justice due to the non-supply of relied-upon documents.

FACT: The Additional Commissioner of CGST passed an order dated 17 March 2026 disallowing Input Tax Credit and imposing tax, penalty, and other dues of approximately Rs. 6.50 crores. The petitioner contended that documents seized during search proceedings and relied upon in the show-cause notice were not supplied, causing prejudice and violating natural justice. The respondents maintained that the show-cause notice and relied-upon documents had been emailed to the petitioner on 28 June 2025 and again on 4 February 2026, and that a proper opportunity of hearing had been provided.

HELD: The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had an effective statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The allegation of breach of natural justice was unsupported by specific pleadings identifying the documents allegedly withheld or explaining the resulting prejudice. The Court found that the relied-upon documents had been supplied and that no exceptional circumstances justified exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. The petition was disposed of with liberty to file a statutory appeal within four weeks, subject to compliance with all requirements, including the mandatory pre-deposit.

Garnishee Proceedings Stayed Pending Decision on GST Interest Representations

ISSUE: Whether interest on self-assessed GST could be recovered through garnishee notices without first adjudicating the petitioner’s representations regarding adjustment of amounts available in its Electronic Cash Ledger.

FACT: The respondents issued garnishee notices in FORM GST DRC-13 for recovery of interest under Section 50 of the CGST/MGST Act for FY 2017-18 to FY 2021-22. The petitioner disputed the computation and claimed that deposits in its Electronic Cash Ledger should reduce the interest liability, but its representations dated 25 August 2023 and 27 October 2023 remained undecided.

HELD: The Court directed Respondent No. 4 to decide both representations on their merits by a reasoned order within six weeks. It kept all rival contentions open and restrained the respondents from taking precipitative action under the garnishee notices until the decision was communicated. If the decision was adverse, it could not be acted upon for a further three weeks to enable the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies.

Arrest under the CGST Act upheld where detailed grounds and necessity for custodial investigation were duly recorded.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner’s arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 and subsequent judicial remand were illegal for alleged non-compliance with the prescribed arrest procedure, thereby entitling him to release through a writ of habeas corpus.

FACT: The petitioner, a director of M/s SRS Live Technologies Pvt. Ltd., was accused of facilitating online gaming transactions worth approximately Rs. 16,44,96,47,476 through the “SabPaisa” payment gateway using dummy entities, allegedly causing GST evasion of about Rs. 4,60,59,01,293. He was arrested on 17 April 2026 for offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act and remanded to judicial custody. He contended that the grounds of arrest were not properly supplied and that the statutory procedure was violated, whereas the authorities maintained that written grounds, credible evidence, and sufficient reasons for arrest had been duly recorded and communicated.

HELD: The Court held that the detailed grounds of arrest demonstrated the petitioner’s alleged involvement, the substantial tax evasion, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the necessity of custodial investigation. The arrest complied with Section 69 of the CGST Act and the departmental circular governing arrests. Accordingly, the arrest and remand were not illegal, the requested relief was declined, and the habeas corpus petition was dismissed.

GST Registration Cancellation – Court Permits Revocation Application on Filing Pending Returns and Payment of Outstanding Tax, Interest and Penalty

Issue: Whether the petitioner, whose GST registration was cancelled by order dated 14.03.2024 for failure to file GST returns within the prescribed period, should be granted an opportunity to seek revocation of the cancellation in line with an earlier decision on identical facts.

Fact: The petitioner challenged the cancellation of GST registration. The petitioner relied on an earlier decision in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, where the Court had permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order upon filing the application within two weeks, furnishing all pending returns, and depositing the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. The State did not object to disposing of the present writ petition on the same terms.

Held: The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner the same relief as granted in WPMB No. 39 of 2025. The petitioner was permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order, and upon filing the application within the prescribed time, submitting all pending returns, and paying the outstanding tax, interest, and penalty, the competent authority was directed to consider and decide the application for revocation in accordance with law. The pending application, if any, was also disposed of.

The High Court Allows De-sealing of Premises for GST Search Proceedings on Petitioner’s Undertaking to Cooperate with Authorities

Issue: Whether the Orders of Prohibition issued in Form GST INS-03 by the CGST authorities, sealing the petitioner’s office and residence premises under Section 67(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, were valid when the search team found the premises locked during execution of the search authorization issued under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act.

Fact: The petitioner’s premises at Shyam Complex, Dewal Road, Jorhat, Assam were sealed on 25.07.2026 as the authorized GST officials, while conducting search proceedings, found the premises locked. The authorities stated that attempts were made to contact the petitioner telephonically to open the premises, but he did not respond, making it impracticable to conduct the search. Therefore, prohibition orders were issued under Section 67(4) of the CGST Act read with Rule 139(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the grounds mentioned in the prohibition orders did not exist. During hearing, the CGST authorities agreed to de-seal the premises if the petitioner cooperated with the search proceedings, and the petitioner expressed willingness to appear before the authorities.

Held: The High Court, without examining the merits of the rival contentions, disposed of the writ petition based on the consensus between the parties. It directed that the petitioner shall remain present at both premises on 05.08.2026 at 11:00 a.m., following which the respondent authorities shall de-seal the premises and the Authorized Officer may conduct the search proceedings strictly in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act and CGST Rules, 2017. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.

GST Writ Petition Dismissed Due to Availability of Alternative Remedy Before GST Appellate Tribunal

ISSUE: Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging the GST demand based on seized notepads and cash memos despite the availability of an alternative statutory appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal.

FACT: The petitioner challenged a GST demand of Rs. 59,18,980, contending that the seized notepads contained only rough estimates or quotations and not unaccounted sales. It also alleged incorrect application of the 18% tax rate and violation of natural justice because the officer who authorised the inspection later decided the appeal. The State argued that the dispute involved factual examination and that an effective statutory remedy was available.

HELD: The High Court dismissed the writ petition and permitted the petitioner to pursue an appeal under Section 109 of the MGST Act. It held that the dispute involved factual questions requiring examination of evidence and that no jurisdictional error, bias, or denial of natural justice had been established. Since the petition was filed before the GST Appellate Tribunal was constituted, the Tribunal was directed to consider any delay favourably.

The High Court Permits Revocation of Cancelled GST Registration Subject to Filing Pending Returns and Payment of Tax, Interest, and Penalty

Issue: The petitioner challenged the order dated 06.03.2026 whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground of failure to file GST returns within the prescribed time.

Fact: The petitioner contended that a Co-ordinate Bench in WPMB No.39 of 2025, in similar circumstances, had permitted the concerned petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to furnishing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. The State counsel did not object to granting similar relief in the present matter.

Held: The High Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025 and granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If such application is filed within two weeks and the petitioner furnishes pending returns and deposits unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the competent authority shall consider and decide the revocation application in accordance with law within four weeks from receipt of the application. Any pending application was also disposed of.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner-firm should be permitted to seek revocation of the order dated 18.01.2025 cancelling its GST registration for failure to file returns within the prescribed period.

FACT: The petitioner challenged the cancellation of its GST registration and relied upon the order passed in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, wherein a similarly situated petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation after filing all pending returns and depositing the unpaid tax with interest and penalty. The respondents had no objection to disposal of the petition on identical terms.

HELD: The Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025, thereby permitting the petitioner to seek revocation of the cancellation order subject to compliance with the prescribed conditions. Any pending application was also disposed of.

Builder Directed to Refund Profiteered ITC Benefit with Interest; No Retrospective Penalty

ISSUE: Whether Oxford Realty LLP failed to pass on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit to the homebuyers of its “Godrej Infinity” project under Section 171 of the CGST Act, and whether post-GST bookings could be excluded, excess benefits could be set off, GST and interest could be included, and penalty could be imposed.

FACT: The applicants alleged that the Respondent did not commensurately reduce flat prices after the introduction of GST. The DGAP found an additional ITC benefit of 1.57% and calculated total profiteering of Rs. 4,64,04,940, inclusive of GST. After adjusting the benefits already passed on, a net amount of Rs. 40,99,917 remained payable to 128 identifiable homebuyers.

HELD: The Tribunal held that the Respondent contravened Section 171 by not fully passing on the ITC benefit. Post-GST bookings could not be excluded, and excess benefits given to other buyers could not be set off. The Respondent was directed to refund Rs. 40,99,917 to the 128 homebuyers with 18% annual interest from their respective last-instalment dates until actual refund. The inclusion of GST was upheld, but no penalty was imposed because the contravention ended before Section 171(3A) came into force.

Unreasoned GST Registration Cancellation Without Effective Hearing Violates Article 14

ISSUE: Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration without an effective opportunity of hearing and without recording reasons was legally sustainable, despite the statutory appeal being dismissed as time-barred.

FACT: The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by order dated 17.11.2022 under Section 29(2)(d) of the GST Act. The petitioner claimed that the show-cause notice uploaded on the GST portal escaped attention because portal operations were handled by his accountant, resulting in an ex parte cancellation. His subsequent appeal was dismissed on 29.09.2025 as being beyond limitation.

HELD: The Court held that the cancellation order did not disclose any reason or application of mind and that the petitioner had not received an effective opportunity of hearing. Such an unreasoned and harsh order failed the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the cancellation order and the appellate order were quashed. The petitioner was directed to reply to the show-cause notice within three weeks, following which the adjudicating authority must pass a fresh order after granting an opportunity of hearing.

The High Court of Allahabad: Bail Granted in Rs. 293.68 Crore Alleged GST Fraud Case Due to Completed Investigation and Likely Trial Delay

ISSUE: Whether Samyak Jain should be granted bail in a case alleging fraudulent availment and passing of Input Tax Credit through shell companies under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017.

FACT: The applicant was accused of operating 37 shell companies that generated fraudulent ITC of Rs. 276.16 crore and export refunds of about Rs. 17.53 crore through fake invoices. He had been in custody since 13 February 2026, had no criminal history, and the investigation was completed with the complaint already filed.

HELD: The Court granted bail because the maximum punishment was five years, the case was triable by a Magistrate, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. It also noted the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents and the absence of any material showing that he would flee, intimidate witnesses, or tamper with evidence. Bail was granted subject to appropriate conditions.

The High Court of Allahabad: Bail Granted in Alleged Wrongful Input Tax Credit Claim Case

ISSUE: Whether the accused-applicant, Manmeet Singh, was entitled to bail in a case alleging cheating and forgery concerning the wrongful claim of Input Tax Credit.

FACT: The applicant, owner of M/s Ramgarhia Exports, was accused of incorrectly claiming Input Tax Credit worth crores of rupees between 2016 and 2019. The FIR was lodged on 18 February 2026 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. His GST registration had been cancelled suo motu, and an appeal against the cancellation was pending. He had no criminal history, claimed false implication, cooperated with the investigation and had been in custody since 2 May 2026.

HELD: The Court allowed the bail application without expressing any opinion on the merits. It considered the period of the alleged transactions, the delay in lodging the FIR and the pending appeal against the suo motu cancellation of GST registration. The applicant was directed to be released upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount, subject to cooperating with the judicial process for a fair and speedy trial.

The High Court of Uttarakhand: Permits Revocation of Cancelled GST Registration on Filing Pending Returns and Payment of Tax Dues

ISSUE: Whether a petitioner whose GST registration was cancelled for failure to file GST returns within the prescribed period should be granted liberty to apply for revocation of the cancellation order on the same terms as those granted in an earlier coordinate Bench decision.

FACT: The petitioner challenged the order dated 17.07.2025 cancelling his GST registration on the ground of non-filing of GST returns within the prescribed period. During the hearing, the Court permitted correction of the description of respondent no. 2 in the cause-title. The petitioner relied upon an earlier decision in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, where, in identical circumstances, the Court had allowed the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to filing all pending returns and depositing the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Counsel for respondent no. 2 raised no objection to disposal of the present writ petition on the same terms.

HELD: The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner the same relief as granted in WPMB No. 39 of 2025. The petitioner was permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks, along with all pending GST returns and payment of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. Upon receipt of such application, the competent authority was directed to consider and decide the prayer for revocation in accordance with law within four weeks. All pending applications were also disposed of.

The Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere as Assessment Order Is Already Under Challenge; SLP Dismissed in Favour of Revenue.

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana: Director Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 132 CGST Without Arraigning the Company as an Accused, 01-08-2026

ISSUE: Whether a Director of a company can be prosecuted under Sections 132 and 137 of the CGST Act, 2017 for fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) when the company, which allegedly availed the ITC, has not been arraigned as an accused.

FACTS: The complaint alleged that M/s Nikita Industries Pvt. Ltd. (M/s NIPL) fraudulently availed ITC of Rs.15.44 crores on the basis of fake invoices without actual supply of goods. The petitioner, Manoj Bansal, was prosecuted in his capacity as Director of the company, but the company itself was not made an accused. The petitioner contended that only the registered person, namely M/s NIPL, could avail ITC and that prosecution of the Director alone was not maintainable under Section 137 of the CGST Act. The respondent argued that the petitioner was the mastermind behind the fraud and was therefore individually liable.

HELD: The High Court held that Section 137 of the CGST Act is pari materia with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and applied the Supreme Court's rulings in Aneeta Hada, Himanshu, Dayle De Souza and other cases. It held that prosecution of a Director on the basis of vicarious liability cannot continue unless the company is also arraigned as an accused. Since M/s NIPL was not impleaded, the complaint against the petitioner alone was not maintainable. The complaint and all consequential proceedings were quashed, while granting liberty to the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

GSTAT Thane: GST Authorities Cannot Deny Undisputed Pre-GST Transitional ITC Under CGST Act; TRAN-1 Credit, KKC and VAT Credit Allowed, 31-07-2026

ISSUE: Whether the GST authorities were justified in denying transitional Input Tax Credit (ITC) carried forward through Form GST TRAN-1 under Section 140 of the CGST Act by examining the admissibility of CENVAT credit and VAT credit earned under the pre-GST laws, when such credit had never been disputed under the erstwhile regime. The appeal also involved the validity of denial of Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) credit, VAT credit, and the jurisdiction to invoke Section 74 of the CGST Act.

FACTS: The appellant transitioned CENVAT credit of Rs. 31,83,93,390, KKC credit of Rs. 74,67,109 and VAT credit of Rs. 22,14,479 into the GST regime through Form GST TRAN-1. The department issued a show cause notice alleging that the appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish eligibility of the transitioned credit and consequently confirmed demand, interest and 100% penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The appellant contended that the credit had been duly reflected in pre-GST returns, was never disputed under the erstwhile laws and therefore could not be questioned under the CGST Act.

HELD: The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It held that GST authorities had no jurisdiction under the CGST Act to examine the admissibility of CENVAT credit validly availed under the erstwhile laws when no proceedings had been initiated under those laws. Any challenge to such credit could only be made under the pre-GST statutes. The Tribunal further held that transition of KKC credit was permissible in view of the Bombay High Court decision in Godrej & Boyce, VAT credit of Rs. 22,14,479 could not be denied without specific findings, procedural deficiencies such as non-production of invoices could not justify denial of the closing balance of transitional credit, and the invocation of Section 74 along with interest and 100% penalty was unsustainable. Accordingly, the appellant's transitioned ITC was held to be legally admissible and consequential relief was granted.

The High Court of Delhi: Pre-deposit under substituted Section 107(6) of the CGST Act not applicable where adjudicatory proceedings commenced before 01.10.2025; vested right of appeal preserved, 31-07-2026

ISSUE: Whether the substituted proviso to Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, effective from 01.10.2025, requiring a pre-deposit of ten per cent of the penalty for filing an appeal against a penalty-only order, applies where the Show Cause Notice initiating adjudicatory proceedings was issued before the amendment, but the Order-in-Original was passed thereafter.

FACT: The Petitioners were issued a Show Cause Notice on 25.06.2025 proposing penalties under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act. At that time, Section 107(6) did not require any percentage-based pre-deposit for appealing against a wholly disputed penalty-only order. After the substituted proviso came into force on 01.10.2025, the Adjudicating Authority passed the Order-in-Original on 16.12.2025 imposing penalties of Rs. 346,55,18,856/- on each Petitioner without any tax demand. The Petitioners challenged the applicability of the amended pre-deposit requirement, contending that their appellate right had vested on the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice.

HELD: The Court held that the right of appeal is a substantive right that vests on the commencement of the lis, which in the present case occurred upon issuance of the Show Cause Notice on 25.06.2025. Since no percentage-based pre-deposit for appeals against penalty-only orders existed on that date, the subsequently substituted proviso to Section 107(6) could not be applied in the absence of express or necessary legislative intent giving it retrospective operation. Accordingly, the Petitioners were entitled to file their appeals without depositing ten per cent of the disputed penalties, the Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the appeals under the unamended provision, and the challenge to the constitutional validity of the substituted proviso was left open.

The High Court of Calcutta: Entertains Writ on Jurisdictional Challenge Despite Alternative GST Appellate Remedy and Remands Matter for Fresh Adjudication

ISSUE: Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal when the petitioner raises pure jurisdictional objections to the competence of the adjudicating authority, including the authority of officers of the Bureau of Investigation to adjudicate under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act and the validity of cross-empowerment between State and Central GST authorities.

FACT: The petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated March 13, 2024, the appellate order dated March 20, 2025, and the consequential recovery proceedings. The adjudication was initiated under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act after an enforcement investigation, resulting in denial of Input Tax Credit claimed from five suppliers. The petitioner contended that the proceedings were without jurisdiction because the petitioner was administratively assigned to the Central GST authorities, whereas the show cause notice and adjudication were undertaken by State GST authorities without any notification under Section 6(1) providing cross-empowerment. It was further argued that officers of the Bureau of Investigation were authorised only to conduct enforcement and investigation and not to adjudicate proceedings under Section 74. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that an appeal under Section 112 of the Act before the GST Appellate Tribunal constituted an efficacious alternative remedy and also contended that cross-empowerment under Section 6 operated automatically without requiring any notification.

HELD: The High Court held that although the existence of an alternative statutory remedy ordinarily bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction, such bar does not apply where the petitioner raises a pure question concerning the jurisdiction and competence of the authority passing the impugned order. Since the petitioner had challenged both the authority of the Bureau of Investigation officer to adjudicate under Section 74 and the jurisdiction of the State GST authorities in the absence of alleged cross-empowerment, substantial jurisdictional questions arose which required consideration. The Court therefore entertained the writ petition, set aside the adjudication order, the appellate order, and all consequential proceedings, and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive reply raising all jurisdictional and other objections. The adjudicating authority was directed to decide the jurisdictional issue as a preliminary issue before considering the merits, after granting an opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.

GSTAT Upholds Anti-Profiteering Demand; Builder Directed to Pass ITC Benefit of Rs. 95.13 Lakh with 18% Interest to Homebuyers

ISSUE: Whether M/s Anuhar Homes Pvt. Ltd. contravened Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 by failing to pass on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) to homebuyers through a commensurate reduction in the price of flats in the "Morning Raaga" project; whether the anti-profiteering proceedings remained maintainable after Notification No. 19/2024-Central Tax dated 30.09.2024; and whether the pendency of a challenge before the Supreme Court required the proceedings to be kept in abeyance.

FACTS: The complainant purchased Flat No. 205 in the respondent's "Morning Raaga" residential project and alleged that the respondent charged GST but did not pass on the benefit of additional ITC. The DGAP investigated and found that no eligible credit was available in the pre-GST period, whereas post-GST the respondent availed ITC of Rs. 1,73,84,508, amounting to 10.63% of the purchase value. Based on this additional ITC, the DGAP computed a profiteered amount of Rs. 95,13,829 (inclusive of GST). The respondent mainly challenged the maintainability of the proceedings and relied on Notification No. 19/2024-Central Tax and the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court, without disputing the computation or proving that the ITC benefit had been passed on to buyers.

HELD: The GST Appellate Tribunal held that the respondent failed to pass on the additional ITC benefit to eligible homebuyers and thereby violated Section 171(1) of the CGST Act. It further held that Notification No. 19/2024-Central Tax only barred acceptance of fresh requests after 01.04.2025 and did not terminate pending proceedings, and that the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court did not justify keeping the matter in abeyance in the absence of any stay. The Tribunal affirmed the DGAP's determination of profiteering of Rs. 95,13,829, directed the respondent to pass on the amount with 18% interest, held that no penalty was leviable as the contravention was prior to 01.01.2020, and directed compliance within three months.

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana: Regular Bail Granted in Fake GST ITC Case as Investigation Complete and Evidence Primarily Documentary

ISSUE: Whether the petitioners, accused of creating fake firms and fraudulently availing and passing on input tax credit under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, should be granted regular bail despite the seriousness of the alleged GST fraud.

FACT: The petitioners were alleged to have created 26 fake firms using fraudulently obtained identities, issued fake GST invoices worth about Rs. 1161.10 crores, and fraudulently availed and passed on fake input tax credit of approximately Rs. 176.24 crores, causing an alleged loss of about Rs. 197.39 crores to the Government exchequer. They had remained in custody for over seven months. The prosecution case was based primarily on documentary and electronic evidence, the investigation had been completed, and the witnesses were mainly government officials. The petitioners contended that further custody was unnecessary as the evidence was already in the Department's possession and the allegations would have to be proved during trial.

HELD: The High Court granted regular bail to both petitioners. It held that the offences were punishable with a maximum imprisonment of five years, the investigation was complete, the prosecution case rested mainly on documentary and electronic evidence, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses was negligible. Since the petitioners had no criminal antecedents, had remained in custody for a substantial period, and the allegations were matters to be tested during trial, their continued incarceration was not justified. Bail was granted subject to conditions including furnishing bail bonds, surrendering passports, not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, regularly appearing before the trial Court, and not committing similar offences.

Additional Construction Work is Not a Substitute for Passing ITC Benefit by Price Reduction under Section 171 of the CGST Act

ISSUE: Whether the respondent builder complied with Section 171 of the CGST Act by passing on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) to homebuyers, whether providing free additional construction work instead of reducing the price amounted to valid compliance, and whether the respondent was liable to pay the balance profiteered amount, interest, and penalty.

FACTS: The complainants alleged that the respondent builder failed to pass on the benefit of additional ITC received under the GST regime in respect of flats sold in the "Anamika Apartment" project. The DGAP initially determined profiteering of Rs. 5,23,942 (including GST), but after considering additional evidence, accepted that the benefit had been passed on to four of the six buyers, leaving a balance profiteered amount of Rs. 99,435 payable to two buyers. The respondent contended that instead of reducing prices, it had provided additional construction work free of cost to those buyers, which exceeded the alleged profiteered amount.

HELD: The GST Appellate Tribunal held that Section 171 mandates passing the benefit of additional ITC only by way of commensurate reduction in prices and that free additional construction work cannot substitute this statutory requirement. It upheld the DGAP's supplementary findings, directed the respondent to pay the balance profiteered amount of Rs. 99,435 along with applicable GST and interest at 18% per annum from the date of collection until payment, and held the respondent liable for penalty under Section 171(3A), subject to the statutory relief if payment is made within the prescribed period.

The High Court Condoned Delay in GST Appeal and Directed Appellate Authority to Decide Appeal on Merits Due to Lack of Effective Communication of Order

Issue: Whether the High Court can condone the delay in filing a statutory GST appeal where the petitioner could not file the appeal within the prescribed limitation because the Order-in-Original was not effectively communicated, was only uploaded on the GST portal, and the online portal treated the appeal as time-barred.

Fact: The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original dated 17.12.2025 raising a GST demand of Rs.3,77,469 for FY 2018-19 on account of alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit. The petitioner contended that the order was never effectively communicated and was merely uploaded on the GST portal. Having filed a detailed reply and not having been granted a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017, the petitioner believed that no final order had been passed. Upon subsequently learning of the order, the petitioner promptly attempted to file a statutory appeal, but the GST portal rejected it as time-barred. Relying on earlier Division Bench decisions of the Rajasthan High Court, the petitioner sought condonation of delay, while the respondents opposed the writ petition on the ground of limitation.

Held: The High Court held that although the Appellate Authority is bound by the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017, the delay in the present case occurred due to circumstances beyond the petitioner's control. Denial of an opportunity to pursue the appeal on merits would cause grave prejudice. Following its consistent view in earlier decisions, the Court condoned the delay, allowed the writ petition to that extent, and directed the Appellate Authority to entertain and decide the appeal on merits, provided it is filed within 30 days from the date of uploading of the Court's order. All pending applications were disposed of.

The High Court of Calcutta: GST Registration Cancellation Set Aside; Restoration Allowed Subject to Filing Pending Returns and Payment of Statutory Dues

ISSUE: Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration under the WBGST Act, 2017 for non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months was liable to be set aside, and whether the petitioner should be permitted to restore the registration by filing the pending returns and paying the statutory dues.

FACT: The petitioner challenged the order dated 24 July 2024 cancelling its GST registration on the ground of continuous non-filing of returns. Although a show cause notice dated 14 May 2024 was issued, the petitioner did not submit any reply. Before the Court, the petitioner expressed willingness to file all pending returns and discharge the tax, interest, fine, and penalty. Reliance was placed on the decision in Subhakar Golder v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Serampore Charge, where similar relief had been granted. The respondents contended that adequate opportunity had been given and the cancellation was in accordance with the statutory provisions due to the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice.

HELD: The Court held that the cancellation of registration merely for non-filing of returns would be counterproductive to the interest of revenue, as the petitioner would be unable to conduct business or generate invoices, thereby affecting tax recovery. Since there was no allegation of tax evasion or fraudulent conduct, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach and set aside the cancellation order subject to the petitioner filing all pending returns and paying the applicable tax, interest, fine, and penalty within four weeks from receipt of the server copy of the order. The respondents were directed to activate the petitioner's GST portal and login credentials within one week to facilitate compliance. Upon compliance, the registration was to be restored by the jurisdictional officer; failing such compliance, the writ petition would stand automatically dismissed. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.

Assessment Order Passed Beyond Limitation and Without Hearing Quashed for Violating Sections 73 and 75 of the Assam GST Act

ISSUE: Whether the assessment order dated 30.04.2024 for the Financial Year 2018-19, imposing tax of Rs.36,86,748/- along with interest and penalty, was valid when it was passed beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 73(10) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, without any valid extension of limitation under Section 168A, and whether the order complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 75 regarding opportunity of hearing and the manner of passing the order.

FACT: The Petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 30.04.2024 contending that it was passed after the limitation period under Section 73(10) had expired on 31.12.2023. It was submitted that no notification under Section 168A of the State Act had extended the limitation period, and the Central Government Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 was inapplicable to the State Act and had already been set aside by the Gauhati High Court in Barkataki Print and Media Services. The Petitioner further argued that the impugned order was not drawn in accordance with Section 75(6) and was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing as required under Section 75(4). The Respondents defended the assessment, but the Court examined the statutory provisions and its earlier decision.

HELD: The Court held that the assessment order dated 30.04.2024 was barred by limitation as the period prescribed under Section 73(10) for the Financial Year 2018-19 had expired on 31.12.2023 and no valid notification under Section 168A of the State Act extended the limitation. The Court further held that the order was not prepared in accordance with Section 75(6) and had been passed without providing the mandatory opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4), rendering it legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and quashed, and any interim order stood vacated.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh: Bail Granted in GST Fake ITC Fraud Case as Investigation Completed and Evidence Already Secured

ISSUE: Whether the applicant, accused of fraudulent availment and passing on of fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) under various provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the gravity of the alleged economic offence, completion of investigation, documentary nature of evidence, and period of custody.

FACT: The applicant was arrested in connection with an alleged GST fraud involving fake ITC of approximately Rs. 17.18 crore and passing on fake ITC of about Rs. 10.82 crore through fake invoices without actual supply of goods. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was the mastermind behind the fraud, fraudulently operated bank accounts using forged documents, and caused substantial loss to the Government exchequer. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, had no ownership or control over the alleged firms, and that the prosecution relied mainly on statements and banking transactions requiring trial for proper appreciation. He further submitted that the investigation had been completed, the complaint had been filed, all documentary and electronic evidence was already in the Department's custody, he had remained in custody since 22.01.2026, and no further custodial interrogation was necessary. The respondent opposed bail on the ground that the offence was a grave economic crime, investigation into the larger conspiracy was continuing, and there was a possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence if released.

HELD: The Court allowed the bail application, holding that although the allegations involved a serious economic offence, the investigation had been completed and the final complaint had already been filed. Since the prosecution case was based entirely on documentary and electronic evidence already seized by the Department, further custodial detention of the applicant was not warranted. Considering the applicant's custody since 22.01.2026, the likelihood of prolonged trial, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court directed his release on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, with the bail remaining effective till disposal of the case.