Petition disposed of—liberty granted to seek revocation of GST registration cancellation subject to filing pending returns and payment of tax, interest and penalty; authority directed to decide in accordance with law.

Issue: Whether the petitioner, whose GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns, should be granted similar liberty to seek revocation of cancellation as was granted by a Co-ordinate Bench in WPMB No. 39 of 2025.

Fact: The petitioner challenged the order dated 14.06.2025 cancelling its GST registration on the ground of failure to file returns within the prescribed period. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passed in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, where the petitioner was permitted to move an application for revocation, subject to filing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax, interest and penalty. The respondents, through learned counsel, raised no objection to disposal of the writ petition on the same terms.

Held: The writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. The petitioner was permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within the stipulated time, along with all pending returns and deposit of unpaid tax, interest and penalty, and the competent authority was directed to consider the prayer for revocation in accordance with law within the prescribed period. Pending applications were also disposed of.

GST Registration Revocation Permitted After Payment of Outstanding Dues; Assessee Allowed Fresh Opportunity to Restore Registration

Issue: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to seek revocation of cancelled GST registration despite expiry of the prescribed time limit, after subsequently clearing outstanding tax dues and undertaking to file all pending returns.

Fact: The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on 07.01.2025 for non-filing of returns. At the time of cancellation, certain tax demands were outstanding. The petitioner later deposited the entire outstanding amount through a challan dated 25.05.2026 and approached the Court because its application for revocation was not being entertained due to the pending dues earlier and expiry of the statutory time limit. The petitioner undertook to file all pending returns and pay any remaining dues. The Revenue did not object to granting such liberty.

Held: The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application for revocation along with evidence proving payment of the outstanding tax dues and filing of all pending returns. The competent officer was directed to consider such application expeditiously in accordance with law. Therefore, the outcome is in favour of the assessee, as the Court provided an opportunity to restore the GST registration subject to compliance with statutory requirements.

The High Court Disposes Writ Petition After Release of Outstanding Contractor Dues; Liberty Granted for Remaining Claims

Issue: Whether the petitioner was entitled to release of pending payment of Rs.7,60,566/- along with 18% interest for the work executed and verified by the respondents, and whether the respondents had any outstanding liability remaining.

Fact: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking release of Rs.7,60,566/- with 18% interest from the date of completion of work until actual payment. On 07.05.2026, the Court recorded the respondents' admission that Rs.7,60,566/- was an outstanding liability and directed that the admitted amount be cleared before the next hearing. Subsequently, the Executive Engineer informed the Court through office instructions dated 17.06.2026 that, after statutory deductions such as GST, labour cess, income tax, royalty and security, a net amount of Rs.6,11,176/- had been released to the petitioner on 21.05.2026 and no further liability remained outstanding.

Held: The Court disposed of the writ petition as the grievance regarding non-payment had been redressed through release of the amount due after statutory deductions. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law for any surviving grievances, including any claim that remained unresolved. Result: Revenue/State authorities effectively succeeded because the petition was disposed of after payment was made and no additional relief, including interest, was granted.

Special Leave Petitions Dismissed; Delay Condoned; Liberty Granted to Pursue Other Remedies in Accordance with Law

Writ Petition Dismissed with Liberty to File Appeal; Appellate Authority Directed to Consider Condonation of Delay and Decide Matter on Merits if Satisfied

Issue: The petition challenged a show cause notice dated 28.12.2023 and an order dated 30.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Telangana GST Act, 2017 and CGST Act, 2017 on the ground that the petitioner had no knowledge of the proceedings as the order was only reflected in the GST portal under additional notices tab and was allegedly communicated only on 23.03.2026, while the writ petition was filed on 30.03.2026.

Fact: The State opposed the writ on the ground of inordinate delay, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (2020) 19 SCC 681. The petitioner, however, sought liberty to pursue an appeal under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the GST Act along with a delay condonation application, stating lack of knowledge of the order due to limited portal visibility.

Held: The Court declined to examine the merits of the matter and disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks along with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit. It was observed that the appellate authority shall consider the issue of delay and, if satisfied with the explanation, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. No order as to costs was made.

Garnishee Notice Under GST Set Aside Due to Discrepancy Between Adjudication Order and Form DRC-07; Rectification Permitted and Remedies Left Open

Issue: The petitioner challenged the garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 22.05.2026 issued by the authorities under the Central Goods and Services Tax framework, contending that the demand of Rs.27,26,235 towards interest and penalty was without jurisdiction, as the earlier order-in-original and Form GST DRC-07 reflected only a tax liability of Rs.50,840 with nil interest and penalty, and the petitioner had already paid Rs.50,840 along with interest of Rs.73,210.

Fact: The adjudication order dated 01.12.2025 confirmed IGST liability of Rs.14,45,363, but the summary in Form GST DRC-07 incorrectly reflected only Rs.50,840 as payable, leading to the petitioner’s payment and dispute over balance interest and penalty. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs stated that a rectified DRC-07 would be issued to correctly reflect the remaining dues, while recovery proceedings through DRC-13 were initiated for the balance amount.

Held: The court found a clear discrepancy between the adjudication order and Form GST DRC-07 and held that recovery based on an incorrect summary notice could not be sustained. The garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 22.05.2026 demanding Rs.27,26,235 was set aside, while permitting rectification of DRC-07 and leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies thereafter. No order as to costs was passed.

GST Registration Cancellation Quashed as Non-Speaking Order; Proper Officer Must Provide Reasons and Follow Due Process

Issue: Whether cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by order dated 13.09.2024 was legally sustainable when the show cause notice lacked necessary particulars and the cancellation order was passed without assigning reasons, despite the petitioner's failure to file returns and respond within time.

Fact: The petitioner, a proprietor engaged in providing light motor vehicles on hire, held GST registration since 26.11.2021. A show cause notice dated 13.08.2024 was issued alleging failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months and her registration was suspended. The petitioner did not submit a reply due to miscommunication with her tax consultant and subsequently neither sought revocation nor filed an appeal within the prescribed limitation period. On 13.09.2024, the Proper Officer cancelled the registration through a cryptic order stating only that GSTR-3B returns had not been filed and no reply to the notice had been received. The petitioner challenged the order under Article 226, contending that both the notice and the cancellation order were arbitrary, non-speaking and passed without application of mind.

Held: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the cancellation order dated 13.09.2024. It held that the show cause notice failed to disclose essential particulars regarding the period of default, thereby depriving the petitioner of an effective opportunity to respond. Further, the cancellation order in Form GST REG-19 was a non-speaking order as it did not record reasons, contrary to Rule 22 of the CGST Rules and principles of natural justice. The Court observed that even in the absence of a reply from the assessee, the Proper Officer remained obligated to pass a reasoned order. The matter was restored to the stage of the show cause notice, and the petitioner was granted one month either to submit a reply explaining why registration should not be cancelled or to furnish all pending returns and pay outstanding tax, interest, late fee and penalty, whereupon the Proper Officer was directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

GST: Gauhati High Court Holds GST DRC-01 Summary Cannot Substitute Mandatory Show Cause Notice Under Section 73(1); Quashes Assessment Order and Permits Fresh Proceedings

Issue: Whether a Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 can substitute the mandatory Show Cause Notice required under Section 73(1) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and whether the consequential Order-in-Original passed on that basis is legally valid. The related issue was whether the limitation period under Section 73(10) should be protected when the defect arose from a technical mistake by the department.

Fact: The petitioners challenged the Summary of Show Cause Notice dated 18.12.2023 and the Order-in-Original dated 08.03.2024. They argued that Section 73(1) mandates issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice and that a DRC-01 summary cannot replace it. They relied on the earlier decision in Construction Catalysers Private Limited v. State of Assam. The State acknowledged that the issue was covered by the earlier judgment but requested exclusion of the intervening period from the limitation prescribed under Section 73(10), as the error was technical in nature.

Held: The Gauhati High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by Construction Catalysers Private Limited v. State of Assam. It reiterated that a DRC-01 summary is not a substitute for a Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1), and notices and orders must be properly authenticated by the proper officer. Consequently, the Court set aside and quashed the Order-in-Original dated 08.03.2024 but did not quash the summary notice dated 18.12.2023. Liberty was granted to the proper officer to issue a fresh Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1), which would relate back to 18.12.2023. The Court also directed that the period between 18.12.2023 and the date of service of the certified copy of the order upon the proper officer be excluded while computing limitation under Section 73(10). The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a reply upon issuance of the fresh Show Cause Notice.

GST Registration Cancellation Set Aside for Defective Show Cause Notice; Violation of Natural Justice Established; Registration Restored with Liberty to Issue Fresh Notice

Issue: The petitioner challenged the order dated 17th November 2025 cancelling GST registration on the ground that it was based on a defective show cause notice dated 22nd September 2025 which failed to disclose specific allegations and supporting facts, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Fact: The court noted that the show cause notice contained only references to legal provisions without factual particulars, while the cancellation order introduced allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression of facts. Relying on the decision in Nirakar Ramchandra Pradhan Vs. Union of India & Ors (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2382), the court observed that absence of specific allegations in the notice prevented the petitioner from filing an effective reply, causing serious prejudice.

Held: The court held that the impugned cancellation order was unsustainable due to violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the order dated 17th November 2025. It further directed that GST registration shall stand restored immediately, while granting liberty to the authorities to issue a fresh show cause notice within 60 days and proceed in accordance with law.

The High Court of Uttarakhand: Permits GST Registration Revocation Application Subject to Filing Returns and Payment of Outstanding Tax, Interest, and Penalty

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner, whose GST registration was cancelled by order dated 28.04.2021 for failure to file returns within the prescribed period, should be granted an opportunity to seek revocation of the cancellation in the same manner as granted in an earlier identical case.

FACTS: The petitioner challenged the GST registration cancellation order dated 28.04.2021. The petitioner relied on a Co-ordinate Bench decision in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, where, in similar circumstances, the petitioner was permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to filing all pending returns and depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The State/respondents did not object to disposal of the present writ petition on the same terms.

HELD: The Court disposed of the writ petition on the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. The petitioner was permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks. Upon filing the application, furnishing all pending returns, and depositing unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty, the competent authority shall consider and decide the request for revocation in accordance with law within four weeks from receipt of the application. All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

The Supreme Court Dismisses SLP; Writ Petition Not Maintainable Where Statutory GST Appeal Was Not Availed Within Limitation

ISSUE: Whether the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be challenged through a writ petition when the petitioner had not availed the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107, and whether the case was comparable to another pending matter concerning absence of allegations of suppression in the show cause notice.

FACTS: The petitioner challenged the proceedings contending that the essential ingredients for invoking Section 74 of the CGST Act were absent, there was no willful suppression of facts, and the Input Tax Credit claimed in the October 2017 return had been voluntarily reversed in the November 2017 return. The petitioner also relied on a pending Special Leave Petition involving a similar issue. The Court examined the show cause notice dated 08.09.2023 and the assessment order dated 07.11.2023 and found that the factual basis of the proceedings had been discussed in detail. The petitioner had a statutory right of appeal under Section 107 but did not exercise it. Although the petitioner claimed ignorance of the assessment order uploaded on the electronic portal, no satisfactory explanation was provided. The petitioner admitted awareness of the proceedings during 2024 but approached the High Court only in 2025.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly refused to entertain the writ petition because the petitioner had failed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy and the limitation period for appeal had expired. The Court found no convincing reason for ignoring the electronic communication of the assessment order. It further held that the present case was factually distinct from SLP (C) No. 33594 of 2025, where the challenge was based on the absence of primary facts showing suppression in the show cause notice. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed and all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Notice Issued; Matter Kept for Deeper Consideration; Interim Protection Granted Against Coercive Action till Next Date of Hearing

Issue: The Petitioners challenged the common adjudication order dated 10th December 2025 mainly on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, contending that transfer of proceedings from Delhi to Mumbai through corrigendum was without authority of law, along with allegations of inordinate delay and breach of procedural fairness causing prejudice.

Fact: It was also brought to the Court’s notice that in connected proceedings before the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 5392 of 2025, an order dated 2nd May 2025 directed Courts and Tribunals to defer hearings on similar subject matters. Despite service, none appeared for the Respondents, though proof of service was placed on record by the Petitioners.

Held: The Court observed that the issues require deeper consideration and accordingly issued notice to the Respondents returnable on 11th August 2026, permitted private notice and humdast service, directed filing of copies for issuance of court notice within one week, and further ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioners based on the impugned order without prior leave of the Court.

Assessment Proceedings Maintainable Against Legal Heirs Even Without Prior Action During Lifetime; Liability Confined to Estate of Deceased Under CGST Act, 2017

Issue: Whether assessment proceedings under Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act, 2017 can be initiated against the legal heirs of a deceased taxable person when no proceedings were initiated during the lifetime of the assessee and the business had already been discontinued.

Fact: The deceased husband of the petitioner was the proprietor of a registered GST business, which was discontinued after his death on 05.03.2019 and the registration was cancelled with effect from 31.12.2019. In 2025, notices including DRC-01A and DRC-01 were issued to the petitioner, followed by an adjudication order dated 11.12.2025 confirming a tax liability of Rs.3,42,355 along with interest and penalty. The petitioner contended that no proceedings were initiated during the lifetime of the assessee and therefore initiation against legal heirs was impermissible.

Held: The Court held that Section 93 of the CGST Act expressly permits initiation and determination of tax, interest and penalty even after the death of the taxable person, including cases where the business has been discontinued and no proceedings were initiated during lifetime. It further held that the expression “person chargeable with tax” under Section 74 includes persons upon whom liability is fastened under the Act, including legal heirs to the extent of the estate inherited. Accordingly, initiation of fresh proceedings was held valid, but liability of legal heirs is limited to the extent of the estate, and the writ petition was dismissed.

The High Court Allows GST Rectification and Directs Consideration of GST Registration Revocation After Correction of Duplicate Demand

Issue: The issue was whether a taxpayer, who had already deposited the tax amount but was subjected to duplicate GST demands under Sections 62 and 73 of the Uttarakhand SGST Act, should be allowed to seek rectification of the demand and consequential revocation of GST registration cancellation.

Fact: The petitioner challenged the order dated 16.04.2025 passed under Section 73 and earlier assessment orders passed under Section 62. The petitioner stated that it had already deposited the tax dues on 24.02.2025. The Revenue admitted that due to non-filing of returns, demands were created under Section 62, but subsequently acknowledged that duplicate taxation had occurred. It further informed the Court that certain rectifications had already been carried out under Section 161 and that the remaining March demand could also be rectified.

Held: The High Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file a rectification application under Section 161. It directed the concerned authority to pass appropriate orders upon such application and further ordered that, after carrying out the rectification, the petitioner firm's request for revocation of cancellation of GST registration must be considered in accordance with law. The decision is in favour of the assessee.

Petitioner Allowed to Seek Revocation of GST Registration Cancellation Subject to Compliance

ISSUE: Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration by order dated 04.08.2025, on the ground of failure to file GST returns within the prescribed period, should be reconsidered by permitting the petitioner to seek revocation of the cancellation order.

FACTS: The petitioner challenged the GST registration cancellation order dated 04.08.2025. The petitioner relied upon an earlier decision in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, where, in similar circumstances, a Coordinate Bench permitted the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to filing all pending returns and depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The Revenue’s counsel stated that she had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of on the same terms.

HELD: The Court disposed of the writ petition on the same terms as 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 returns and payment of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. Upon such compliance, the competent authority shall consider and decide the application for revocation in accordance with law within four weeks from receipt of the application. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

The High Court of Madras: Declines to Quash GST Show Cause Notice; Directs Petitioner to Establish Captive Consumption of Solar Power Before Authorities.

ISSUE: Whether the show cause notice dated 12.02.2026 should be quashed on the ground that the authorities wrongly assumed that the petitioner supplied electricity to TANGEDCO, whereas the petitioner claimed that the electricity generated from its rooftop solar power plant was entirely captively consumed.

FACTS: The petitioner generated a small quantity of electricity through its rooftop solar power plant. According to the petitioner, the generated power was fed into TANGEDCO’s grid and equivalent units were adjusted through credit, resulting in captive consumption and not a supply of electricity to TANGEDCO. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice issued by the GST authorities on this basis.

HELD: The Court held that the dispute involved factual issues requiring determination, particularly whether the entire electricity generated was captively consumed or whether any portion was supplied to TANGEDCO. Since such factual examination could not be undertaken at the stage of the show cause notice, the Court declined to interfere. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a reply with supporting documents to establish captive consumption and to raise objections regarding the clubbing of multiple assessment periods. If an adverse order is passed thereafter, the petitioner may challenge it in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

The High Court Sets Aside Unsigned GST Assessment Order, Orders Fresh Adjudication Subject to Deposit of 20% Disputed Tax

Issue: The petitioner challenged a GST assessment order dated 24.05.2025 on the ground that it was invalid as it did not bear the signature of the assessing officer, and also raised objections regarding alleged delayed service of the order through the GST portal.

Fact: The respondents contended that service through the GST portal was valid under Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, while the petitioner argued non-receipt in the conventional manner. The Court noted conflicting views on portal-based service, and also referred to prior judgments holding that absence of signature on assessment orders renders them invalid, including decisions in A.V. Bhanoji Row, SRK Enterprises, and SRS Traders. It further observed practical difficulties faced by taxpayers under the GST online system and the issue of delay in approaching the Court.

Held: The High Court set aside the impugned assessment order due to the absence of the assessing officer’s signature and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after hearing the petitioner. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks as a condition, allowed adjustment of any amounts already paid, excluded the writ petition period for limitation purposes, and left all other issues open for consideration by the Assessing Officer.

Writ Petition Disposed of Granting Liberty to Seek Revocation of Cancelled GST Registration Subject to Filing Returns and Payment of Dues

Issue: Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief against cancellation of GST registration and to be granted liberty to seek revocation of the cancellation order on account of failure to file returns within the prescribed period.

Fact: The GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 26.07.2025 due to non-filing of returns. The petitioner relied upon an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in WPMB No. 39 of 2025 permitting filing of a revocation application subject to furnishing pending returns and payment of outstanding tax, interest and penalty. The Revenue raised no objection to disposal of the petition on similar terms.

Held: The writ petition was disposed of in terms similar to WPMB No. 39 of 2025, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a revocation application within the stipulated period along with all pending returns and payment of dues, interest and penalty, and directing the competent authority to decide the application in accordance with law within the prescribed time. Pending applications, if any, also stood disposed of.

Bail Granted in GST ITC Fraud Case as Ownership of Alleged Bogus Firm Was Not Conclusively Established and Further Custodial Interrogation Was Unnecessary

Issue: Whether Aman Singh, arrested under Section 132 of the CGST Act for allegedly creating and operating M/s Hindustan Corporation to fraudulently avail and pass on Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 7.59 crore, should be granted regular bail despite DGGI's allegations of his operational control, financial involvement and non-cooperation during the investigation.

Fact: DGGI alleged that M/s Hindustan Corporation, a proprietorship firm registered in the name of Jagat Sanyasi, fraudulently availed ITC without actual movement of goods and issued fake invoices amounting to Rs. 7,59,25,127/-. The department alleged that Aman Singh controlled the firm, relied upon statements recorded during investigation, GST return filings, WhatsApp invoices and bank transactions of about Rs. 4.93 crore between M/s Hindustan Corporation and his firm, M/s Khyati Enterprises. Aman Singh contended that he was not the proprietor of M/s Hindustan Corporation, no conclusive documentary evidence established ownership or control, the actual proprietor Jagat Sanyasi was not arrested and he had already remained in custody since 14.03.2026.

Held: The Court held that, at the bail stage, no unimpeachable document conclusively established that Aman Singh was the proprietor of M/s Hindustan Corporation. The prosecution's case was primarily based on statements, financial transactions and circumstantial evidence, whose evidentiary value would have to be examined during trial. Since the applicant had been in custody since 14.03.2026, the investigation had substantially progressed, relevant documents and electronic evidence had already been seized and further custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the Court granted regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one solvent surety.

Unsigned GST Assessment Order Held Invalid; Matter Remanded Subject to Deposit of 20% of Disputed Tax

Issue: Whether an assessment order issued in FORM GST DRC-07 without the signature of the Assessing Officer is legally valid, and whether the writ petition should be entertained despite delay in approaching the Court due to the order being uploaded only on the GST portal.

Fact: The petitioner challenged the GST assessment order dated 25.07.2023 on the ground that it did not contain the signature of the Assessing Officer. The petitioner contended that the order was never conventionally served and was only uploaded on the GST portal. The respondents argued that uploading on the portal constituted valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act and that the petition suffered from unexplained delay. The Court referred to its earlier decisions in A.V. Bhanoji Row, M/s. SRK Enterprises, and M/s. SRS Traders, which had consistently held that absence of the Assessing Officer's signature renders an assessment order invalid.

Held: The High Court held that the absence of the Assessing Officer's signature is an inherent and fatal defect that cannot be cured under Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act. Considering the practical difficulties faced by taxpayers in accessing GST portal communications, especially where orders suffer from patent irregularities, the Court set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity of hearing. However, the relief was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks, after adjusting any payments already made. The period during which the writ petition remained pending was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes, and all issues were left open to be raised before the Assessing Officer.

Assessing Officer cannot bypass remand directions by issuing fresh show cause notice; action held to be impermissible and set aside for adjudication on original notice after personal hearing.

Issue: Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing a second show cause notice and passing a fresh adjudication order under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 after the matter had already been remanded earlier by the High Court with a direction to adjudicate the original notice after granting personal hearing.

Fact: The petitioner challenged the order dated 11.03.2026 relating to Financial Year 2022–23, passed under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Earlier, by order dated 25.07.2024 in connected writ petitions, the Court had set aside the assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to grant personal hearing and adjudicate the original show cause notice in accordance with law. Instead of proceeding with adjudication on the first show cause notice, the Assessing Officer issued a second show cause notice and passed the impugned order. The petitioner contended that this action was contrary to the remand directions and relied on a similar order dated 11.06.2026 in another connected writ petition where identical proceedings were set aside.

Held: The Court held that once specific directions were issued to adjudicate the original show cause notice after granting personal hearing, the Assessing Officer was bound to comply and could not issue a second show cause notice. Such conduct amounted to overreaching the Court’s earlier order and was impermissible. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 was set aside and the matter was remanded again to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order strictly on the basis of the first show cause notice after due compliance of personal hearing and consideration of the reply.

Assessee gets relief: GST assessment order on seigniorage fee set aside and matter remanded pending Supreme Court decision.

Issue: Whether the assessment order passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017 levying GST on seigniorage fees was valid when the core issue regarding the taxability of seigniorage fees is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and whether the petitioner should be given another opportunity to present its case.

Fact: The petitioner challenged the GST DRC-07 assessment order dated 29.01.2026. The dispute relates to GST on seigniorage fees, an issue already pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Earlier High Court decisions had directed authorities to complete proceedings but refrain from passing final orders until the Supreme Court decides the matter. In this case, despite the petitioner not responding to the show cause notice and failing to produce supporting documents, the assessing authority passed a final assessment order.

Held: The writ petition was allowed in favour of the assessee (petitioner). The High Court set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was granted two weeks to submit a reply with supporting documents. No requirement of depositing 25% was imposed because the very incidence of tax is under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Any fresh final order shall be kept in abeyance until the Supreme Court delivers its decision.

The High Court of Madras: Dismisses GST Assessment Challenge Filed Beyond Limitation; Directs Lifting of Bank Attachment Upon Proof of Tax Recovery

The Court reviewed an assessment where the Tax Officer addressed each issue—under-declaration, excess ITC, and post-cancellation purchases—and made specific findings. It signaled that issue-wise scrutiny may stand, but a blanket ITC denial based only on supplier cancellation will be struck down.

ISSUE: Whether the High Court should interfere with the assessment orders for assessment years 2018-2019 and 2020-2021, particularly regarding the classification of jewellery under the appropriate HSN Code, and whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

FACTS: The petitioner challenged assessment orders relating to 2018-2019 and 2020-2021. The petitioner contended that the jewellery sold by it falls under HSN Code 7113 and not HSN Code 7018, and sought reconsideration or permission to approach the appellate authority. The respondent submitted that the petitioner’s replies and supporting documents had already been considered and that a classification dispute should not be examined in writ jurisdiction. The assessment orders recorded findings that the petitioner dealt in customized gold-plated jewellery classified under HSN Code 7018. The Tax Officer also examined issues relating to under-declaration of output tax, reconciliation differences between GSTR-8 and GSTR-1, excess ITC claims, and ITC claimed after GST registration cancellation, after considering the petitioner’s explanations.

HELD: The High Court found that the petitioner’s replies and documents were duly considered and that factual findings had been recorded on all disputed issues. Since no ground for interference under the Court’s discretionary writ jurisdiction was established, and the writ petitions were filed after expiry of the limitation period, the Court declined to entertain them. However, the Court held that if the petitioner produces documents showing that the entire tax liability has been recovered, the Tax Officer shall lift the bank attachment. The writ petitions were disposed of, connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and no order as to costs was made.

GST Registration Restoration Allowed Where Returns Were Subsequently Filed and Taxpayer Agreed to Clear All Outstanding Dues Under Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules

Issue: Whether cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration for non-filing of GST returns for more than six months should continue when the petitioner had subsequently rectified the defaults, filed pending returns and was willing to comply with the requirements under Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Fact: The petitioner's GST registration was suspended on 05.02.2024 and subsequently cancelled on 25.04.2024 under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act due to continuous non-filing of returns for six months. The petitioner contended that the default occurred because of acute financial hardship, that all pending returns up to April 2024 had been updated, and that she was ready to pay all outstanding tax, interest and late fees. Since the statutory time limit for seeking revocation had expired, she approached the High Court seeking restoration of registration and relied upon the earlier decision in Dhirghat Hardware Stores.

Held: The High Court held that the case was squarely covered by the earlier decision in Dhirghat Hardware Stores. Considering that cancellation of GST registration has serious civil consequences and that Rule 22(4) permits dropping cancellation proceedings when pending returns are furnished and dues are paid, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority within 60 days seeking restoration of GST registration. Upon compliance with Rule 22(4), the authority was directed to consider restoration expeditiously. The petitioner was also directed to pay all arrears, including tax, penalty, interest and late fees.

Writ Petition Disposed of with Liberty to Apply for Revocation of GST Registration Cancellation Subject to Clearance of Dues; Direction for Expeditious Consideration within Four Weeks

Issue: Whether the petitioner, whose GST registration was cancelled due to default in payment of GST, is entitled to seek restoration of registration through revocation after clearing outstanding dues.

Fact: The GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled on 10.03.2025 for non-payment of GST. The petitioner contended that all pending dues have already been deposited and expressed willingness to clear any further liability as determined by the Department. The Revenue submitted that if the petitioner files a revocation application along with proof of payment of outstanding dues, the same would be considered appropriately.

Held: The writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration along with evidence of payment of dues. The competent authority was directed to consider and decide the application expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of filing. Pending applications also stood disposed of.