"GST Cash Credit Dispute: Petitioner Challenges Provisional Account Attachment, Court Grants Objection Filing Opportunity"

The petitioner, registered under the UP GST Act, 2017, availed a cash credit facility under the Maha Krishi Smriddhi Yojana from the Bank of Maharashtra. A grievance was raised regarding an order dated 08.03.2024, where the Principal Additional Director General, DGGI, Lucknow Zonal Unit, provisionally attached the petitioner's Cash Credit Account u/s  83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the order violated Section 159 of the CGST Rules, 2017, as they were not provided a copy of Form GST DRC-22, which was sent only to the bank. It was contended that the order should have been issued by the Commissioner, not the Principal Additional Director General. The respondents opposed the petition, citing that the order was lawful u/s 3(d) of the GST Act, equating the Additional Director General to the Commissioner. The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file objections within two weeks to the order dated 08.03.2024. The authorities were directed to decide on these objections within two weeks thereafter, with provisions for the release of the petitioner's account if objections were upheld.

"GST Compliance Error Overturned: Court Grants Relief, Sets Condition for Tax Remittance"

The petitioner challenged an order dated 18.01.2024, claiming inadequate opportunity to contest a tax demand related to GST compliance errors. The petitioner, represented by counsel, admitted to an inadvertent mistake in filing GSTR 3B returns, resulting in the disputed tax liability. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument and set aside the order, imposing a condition for remitting 10% of the disputed tax within two weeks. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to respond to the show cause notice and file a rectified return, with the respondent directed to issue a fresh order within three months after verifying compliance with the condition. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

"GST Portal Notices Issue Resolved: Court Grants Relief, Orders Fresh Hearing"

The petitioner contested an order dated 26.08.2023, alleging insufficient opportunity to contest a tax demand related to discrepancies in GSTR filings. The petitioner argued that crucial notices were only accessible on the GST portal and not communicated directly. The court acknowledged the petitioner's claim of unawareness and noted substantial debits from their bank account following the order. Finding merit in the petitioner's argument, the court set aside the order and directed them to respond to the show cause notice within 15 days. The respondent was instructed to grant a fair hearing and issue a fresh order within three months. The writ petition was resolved without costs.

"GST Assessment Dispute: Court Dismisses Petition Alleging ITC Oversight"

The petitioner contested an assessment order dated 29.04.2024, issued after receiving a show cause notice regarding discrepancies in reporting tax liability in annual GST returns (Form GSTR 9). The petitioner argued that available ITC was not considered, leading to an erroneous tax proposal of Rs. 2,71,465/- each for CGST and SGST. The court noted that the petitioner's reply was considered in the assessment order, rejecting claims of procedural unfairness. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs, allowing the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies.

"GST Writ Petition Success: Court Overturns ITC Reversal on Discount Issue"

The petitioner challenged an order dated 12.03.2024 specifically concerning defect no.3 related to the reversal of ITC for credit notes issued by the supplier under GST laws. The petitioner argued that the discount received should not lead to ITC reversal as it did not meet statutory conditions. The court found merit in the petitioner's contention, noting errors in the assessment that deemed the discount as a service provided by the petitioner to the supplier. The court set aside the order on this issue, directing the assessing officer to reconsider defect no.3 after affording the petitioner a fair opportunity, including a personal hearing. While other defects were pursued in appellate proceedings, the court upheld the writ petition's jurisdiction due to the legal nature of the issue. The petition was resolved without costs.

"Petitioner Challenges GST Assessment Order; Court Directs Appeal Path Amidst Hearing Violation Claim"

The petitioner challenged an order dated 18.12.2023 under U.P. GST/CGST/IGST Act, 2017, imposed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lucknow, assessing tax of Rs. 1,20,95,308.21, including interest and penalty. The petitioner claimed the order violated statutory provisions and denied him a hearing. The Standing Counsel argued that notice was served but the petitioner did not appear, and cited the availability of appeal remedies under Section 107 of the UPGST/CGST Act and legal precedent (Commissioner of Income Tax & Others Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, 2014 (1) SCC 603). The court concluded the petitioner could address grievances through appeal, directing protection from coercive action pending appeal filing.

"GST Registration Cancelled Due to Ill-health; Court Orders Revival on Compliance with Filing and Tax Payment Conditions"

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of their GST registration dated 19.04.2023, citing inability to file returns due to ill-health. The petition referenced the judgment in Suguna Cutpiece v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST), seeking similar relief. The senior standing counsel for the respondent accepted notice and agreed to directions akin to Suguna Cutpiece. The court disposed of the petition with directives: the petitioner must file overdue returns with tax, interest, and late fees within 45 days, excluding any unutilized ITC. Only approved ITC can be utilized for future tax liabilities. Upon compliance, GST registration will be reinstated immediately, with the respondent instructed to modify the GST portal accordingly within 30 days.

"Court Quashes GST Orders Despite Time Bar; Petitioners Granted Fresh Review Opportunity"

Two writ petitions (W.P.(MD)Nos.13546 and 13547 of 2024) were disposed of with the consent of the Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. The petitioners challenged orders dated 12.12.2023 and 26.12.2023 for the AY 2017-18, following notices on the GST portal. They claimed unawareness of both notices and orders. The respondents argued the petitions were time-barred and cited Supreme Court rulings on limitation. The court exercised discretion in favor of the petitioners, quashing the orders upon depositing 10% of disputed tax within 30 days. The quashed orders were treated as addenda to the preceding show cause notices. The respondents were directed to review the cases and issue fresh orders within three months, after hearing the petitioners.

The Court Orders Refund of Rs. 30 Lakhs, Citing Coercion and Procedural Lapses During GST Search.

1. Background:
• The appellants filed a writ petition seeking a refund of Rs. 30,00,000/- allegedly paid under coercion during a search on 22nd March 2023.
• The writ petition was dismissed on 14th June 2023 due to the revenue producing a proper authorization (INS-01) dated 12th June 2023.
2. Appeal:
• Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellants filed an intra-Court appeal.
3. Arguments:
• Appellants: Claimed the payment was coerced and questioned the validity of the search authorization.
• Respondents: Argued that the payment was voluntary and the search was valid.
4. Evidence:
• Appellants presented affidavits alleging the INS-01 signatures were falsified.
• Discrepancies were noted in the search's recorded times.
5. Legal Context:
• No GST DRC-04 receipt was issued, contradicting Rule 142(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
• Cited cases (e.g., Vallabh Textiles, Shree Ganesh Molasses Trading Co.) supported the appellants' stance that payments made under search circumstances are not voluntary.
6. Court’s Decision:
• The payment of Rs. 30,00,000/- was deemed coerced and not voluntary.
• Directed the GST authorities to refund the amount within six weeks.
• Ordered issuance of a show-cause notice within twelve weeks for further adjudication, allowing the appellants to contest the validity of the search and payment.
7. Additional Directions:
• The appellants can claim interest during the show-cause notice adjudication.
• No costs were imposed.
The Court ultimately sided with the appellants, highlighting procedural lapses and coercion evidence during the search.

The Court Sets Aside Tax Order Due to Lack of Notice; Petitioner Granted Opportunity for Remand

The petitioner challenged an order dated 12.12.2023, arguing that they were not given a reasonable opportunity to contest a tax demand on its merits. The petitioner claimed they were unaware of the proceedings as notices were uploaded on a portal and not communicated through other means. The court considered the submissions, including the assertion that the tax demand stemmed from discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The petitioner offered to remit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for a remand.

The Government Advocate argued that principles of natural justice were followed with various notices issued. Upon examining the order, the court found merit in the petitioner's claim of being unaware and set aside the order dated 12.12.2023. The petitioner was directed to remit 10% of the disputed tax within two weeks and allowed to submit a reply to the show cause notice within that period. The respondent was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months upon receipt of the petitioner's reply.

The writ petition was disposed of on these terms, with no costs awarded to either party, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.

"The High Court Grants Relief to Petitioner Over Uncommunicated GST Notices, Orders Remand for Fair Hearing"

The petitioner challenged an order dated 30.10.2023, asserting they did not have a fair opportunity to contest a tax demand. The petitioner claimed that notices regarding the assessment were uploaded only on the GST portal and not communicated through other means, resulting in their unawareness and inability to participate in the proceedings.

The court noted discrepancies in the filing periods of GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 returns between the petitioner and the recipient of construction services, leading to a tax proposal. The government representatives argued that reminders were sent via RPAD, and notifications were uploaded on the GST portal, which the petitioner allegedly received on 01.06.2023.

Upon reviewing the case, the court found that although the petitioner's explanation of not being aware due to portal notifications was not entirely accepted, justice demanded providing the petitioner with an opportunity to contest. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order on the condition that the petitioner remit 15% of the disputed tax demand within fifteen days and submit a reply to the show cause notice. Upon satisfaction of these conditions, the tax authority was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months.

As a result, W.P.No.15779 of 2024 was disposed of with no costs imposed.

"The Court Quashes GST Assessment Order, Grants Partial Relief to Small-Time Dealer"

The petitioner challenged an order dated 21.09.2023 related to GST assessment for the year 2017-18. The petitioner, a small-time dealer, claimed discrepancies in Input Tax Credit (ITC) between Form GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B but failed to respond to prior notices. The petitioner sought a chance to explain and offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax. The Additional Government Pleader argued for dismissal due to petitioner's delay and cited precedents on limitation.

After considering both sides, the court granted partial relief. It quashed the impugned order and directed the respondent to reconsider the case within two months. The petitioner was required to deposit 30% of the disputed tax and respond to previous notices. The quashed order was treated as an addendum to the show cause notice, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, without costs.

"GST Refund Appeal Challenges Rejection of Rs. 3,62,841; Tribunal Action Pending"

The petitioner had applied for GST refund which was initially sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise for various periods between July 2017 and January 2018. Subsequently, appeals were filed by the Assistant Commissioner to reject a portion of the refund related to accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) on capital goods, citing Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules. These appeals resulted in the rejection of a refund amounting to Rs. 3,62,841. The petitioner filed a petition challenging this rejection.

At the time of filing the petition, the CGST Tribunal was not yet constituted, but has been since. The court directed the petitioner to pursue their remedy by filing an appeal before the Tribunal within four weeks. Pending the appeal process, no recovery steps shall be taken against the refunded amount.

"Madras HC Strikes Down Order Over Mindfulness Lapses, Directs Reconsideration"

The petitioner challenged an order in original dated 26.12.2023 on grounds of non-application of mind and failure to consider submitted evidence. The order followed a show cause notice dated 23.03.203 covering multiple tax proposals, including discrepancies in GST returns, tax rates on road works, and ITC issues. The petitioner argued duplication in tax proposals and cited notifications regarding tax rates. The court found several flaws, including speculative conclusions and lack of supplier certificates for input tax credit claims over Rs. 5 lakhs. It set aside the order, directing the petitioner to remit Rs. 25 lakhs towards the disputed tax within 15 days for reconsideration. The tax department was instructed to provide a fair hearing and issue a reasoned fresh order within three months.

"GST Assessment Quashed: Court Directs Reconsideration Over Lack of Reasoning"

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 18.03.2024 on the grounds that it lacked reasoning. The assessment pertained to the 2018-19 period, initiated based on discrepancies between Table 8A of the annual return (GSTR-9) and the auto-populated GSTR-2A. The petitioner argued that the discrepancies were acknowledged by the CBIC in a press release. The court found that the assessment order confirmed the tax proposal without providing reasons, leading to its invalidation. Consequently, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing the tax authorities to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity and issue a reasoned fresh order within three months.

"The High Court Upholds Single Judge's Decision Quashing GST Penalty, Affirms Rights to Movement and Trade"

This intra-Court Appeal challenges a Single Judge’s order dated 23.06.2022, which favored respondent’s W.P. No. 7226/2022 (T-RES), quashing the obligation to pay tax and penalty and directing the release of a seized vehicle. The appeal argues that the goods were intercepted at Bommasandra Industrial Area, deviating from the documented route, violating GST Act provisions. The respondent contended that the interception was unjustified, citing fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution regarding movement and trade. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge's decision, citing lack of legal basis for the deviation penalty and acknowledging the rights to movement and trade.

"The Court Strikes Down Assessment Order, Orders Fresh Review on Alleged Non-existent Supplier Claim"

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 07.03.2024 on grounds of breach of natural justice principles. The dispute arose from denial of ITC related to supplies from J. Minar Traders, alleged by the tax department to be non-existent. The petitioner provided evidence including tax invoices, e-way bills, and bank statements. The department, citing lack of proof of goods movement, reversed the ITC u/s 16(2)(b) of GST laws. The court set aside the order, directing the department to provide specific reasons and documents supporting their allegations, and allowed the petitioner to respond before issuing a fresh order.

 The Court Quashes CGST Orders, Remands Case for Reconsideration: Late Filing Appeal, Lack of Reasoning, and Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Addressed; Petitions Resolved Without Deciding Refund Merits.

•  Petitions Disposed by Common Order: Both petitions were resolved together as pleadings were complete and parties consented.
•  Orders Challenged: The petitioner contested the orders from the Assistant Commissioner (CGST and Central Excise) dated 21st September 2019 and the Commissioner (CGST and Central Excise) dated 25th January 2021.
•  Appeal Rejection: The petitioner’s appeal against the Assistant Commissioner’s order was rejected by the Commissioner due to late filing by 29 days, beyond the permissible extension.
•  Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Mr. Mishra argued that the Court should not exercise its jurisdiction if the petitioner did not appeal within the prescribed time. However, the Court decided to exercise its jurisdiction.
•  Article 300A Consideration: The Court was inclined to use its jurisdiction under Article 226, referencing Article 300A.
•  Petitioner’s Business Details: The petitioner, trading as M/s. Air Miracle, provided HVAC and cleanroom projects to various clients and charged IGST on supplies.
•  Refund Claim: The petitioner applied for a refund of Rs. 17,52,468/- IGST, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner without proper reasoning.
•  Deficiency Memo: Despite a memo for additional documents, the petitioner’s representative faced difficulties in submitting them. The facts were disputed but not resolved by the Court.
•   Order Critique: The rejection order lacked reasoning and seemed to use a template, showing non-application of mind.
•   Second Order Details: The Commissioner acknowledged a 25-day delay and listed the petitioner’s reasons, including lack of legal expertise and difficulty understanding new GST procedures.
•  The Court’s Stance on Delay: The Court sympathized with the petitioner’s challenges and acknowledged its power to condone the delay.
•  Orders Quashed: Both contested orders were quashed.
•  Remand for Reconsideration: The case was sent back to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh review, requiring the petitioner to submit deficient documents within a week and ensuring a hearing before any decision.
•  Petitions Disposed: Both petitions were resolved.
•  Merits Unaddressed: The Court made no comments on the refund amount, leaving it to the Assistant Commissioner’s fresh evaluation.

"The Court Sets Aside Tax Demand Order, Grants Fresh Hearing to Petitioner on Input Tax Credit Dispute"

The petitioner challenged an order dated 12.09.2023, alleging lack of opportunity to contest a tax demand concerning Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed on the purchase of a goods vehicle. The petitioner, engaged in the business of vegetable oil trading, asserted that the vehicle purchase was business-related and eligible for ITC. The court found that while principles of natural justice were generally adhered to, the petitioner's subsequent reply was not considered before the order was issued.

The court set aside the impugned order on the condition that the petitioner remit 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks. The petitioner was also granted an opportunity to submit a reply to the show cause notice and to be heard personally. The respondent was directed to issue a fresh order within three months from receipt of the petitioner's reply, provided the remittance condition was met. W.P.No.15570 of 2024 was disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded.

The Court Rules in Favour of Jewellery Exporter on GST Refund Calculation, Quashes Order Granting Minimal Refund

The petitioner, a jewellery processor and exporter, filed a refund claim for Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) under Section 54 of the CGST Act for the period June 2018 to September 2018. They imported gold and exported jewellery, claiming refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on exports. The refund claimed was Rs. 21,00,000/-, but respondent no. 1, the adjudicating authority, granted only Rs. 88,295/- citing instructions from Board Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST. These instructions mandate considering the lower value between the export invoice and the value declared in the shipping bills for determining the refund amount.

The petitioner contested that the FOB value declared in the GST Invoice should be considered, which was USD 224846.75, instead of the lower value based on net realization, USD 6479.39, as argued by respondent no. 1. The court agreed with the petitioner, stating that the value declared in the GST Invoice should prevail unless there's a discrepancy, in which case the lower value should be considered. They analogized this to a scenario where a jeweller's invoice includes the value of gold used in making jewellery, regardless of whether it was supplied free of cost or not.

Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to respondent no. 1 for reconsideration based on the correct interpretation of the invoice values and applicable rules.

Is there anything specific you would like to focus on or discuss further about this case?

"Petitioner's Challenge Leads Court to Set Aside Tax Order, Orders Fresh Review"

The petitioner challenged an order dated 28.12.2023, arguing they were not given a fair opportunity to contest a tax demand related to discrepancies between their GSTR 3B returns and auto-populated GSTR 2A. The petitioner claimed unawareness of the proceedings until recently. The court found merit in the petitioner's plea and set aside the order, contingent on the petitioner remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice, and upon satisfaction of the remittance, the tax authority was directed to provide a fresh order within three months, ensuring principles of natural justice. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and associated actions were closed accordingly.

"Madras HC Overturns Tax Order and Recovery Notice, Orders Reconsideration"

The petitioner challenged an order dated 30.12.2023 and a subsequent recovery notice dated 13.05.2024. The petitioner responded to a show cause notice by detailing payment of interest and ITC issues, supported by documentary evidence. Despite this, the impugned order disregarded the petitioner's submissions on both counts. The court found merit in the petitioner's arguments and set aside the order and recovery notice, remanding the matter for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to submit additional documents, and the tax authority was directed to issue a fresh order within three months, ensuring principles of natural justice. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and related petitions were closed accordingly.

"Madras HC Remands Tax Dispute Over ITC Reversal, Grants Opportunity for Review"

The petitioner challenged an order dated 23.08.2023, asserting they were not given a fair opportunity to contest a tax demand regarding ITC reversal. Despite issuing notices, including a show cause notice, the petitioner claimed unawareness and subsequent attachment notice from their banker prompted an appeal, which was rejected on procedural grounds. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument that they did not utilize ITC for credit notes issued by suppliers and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted 15 days to respond to the show cause notice, and the tax authority was directed to conduct a fresh review within three months, ensuring procedural fairness. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and related motions were closed accordingly.

"Kerala HC Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging CGST/KSGST Order Due to Alleged Natural Justice Violation"

The petitioner, an assessee under the CGST/KSGST Rules, 2017, filed a writ petition challenging an order issued u/s 73(9) of the CGST/KSGST Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed they did not receive notice from the 1st respondent before the order was passed, citing a violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner's shop had closed in 2020, and notices sent to the shop's address were not received, preventing a response or appeal.

The court noted that the show cause notice u/s 73(1) was issued, but the petitioner did not reply. It is the petitioner's responsibility to update the address for communication. Since the petitioner failed to do so, the State Tax Officer sent notices to the last known address and completed the proceedings. The court found no violation of natural justice and dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies if available.

"Madras HC Allows Belated Appeal in TNGST Case, Directs Expedited Review"

The petitioner challenged an order dated 01.12.2023 related to the AY 2022-23 under the TNGST Act, 2017. The Writ Petition, filed on 10.06.2024, was considered belated for filing an appeal u/s 107 of the Act. Despite submissions on merits, the court decided to dispose of the petition, allowing the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (GST-Appeal), Madurai and Tirunelveli, within 30 days. The Deputy Commissioner (GST-Appeal) was added as a party. The court directed the second respondent to expedite the appeal process and dispose of it within three months if filed within the stipulated period. The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded, and related miscellaneous matters were closed.