Uttar Pradesh Medical Supplies Corporation Limited, Lucknow, UP<\/h3><\/a>\n
Uttar Pradesh Medical Supplies Corporation Limited, Lucknow, UP<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
Raipur Development Authority, Raipur, Chhattisgarh<\/h3><\/a>\n
Raipur Development Authority, Raipur, Chhattisgarh<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
Housing And Urban Development Corporation Ltd, New Delhi<\/h3><\/a>\n
Housing And Urban Development Corporation Ltd, New Delhi<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
DELHI HIGH COURT [Chetak Logistics Ltd. VS Union of India]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The court quashed the impugned GST order passed under Section 73, citing non-application of mind and template-like reasoning. It noted the improper rejection of the petitioner\u2019s reply without valid reasons. Fresh adjudication is ordered, directing proper consideration of submissions and the issuance of a reasoned, non-arbitrary order. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT [Jyoti Tar Products Private Limited & Anr. Vs The Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Shibpur, WBGST ]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The court dismissed the writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 74 of the CGST\/WBGST Acts for wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) availment. It ruled that writ jurisdiction cannot replace the statutory adjudication process. The petitioner failed to demonstrate jurisdictional error or perversity in the SCN, with procedural grievances addressable during adjudication.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT [Rajendra Kumar Kothari & Anr. Vs Varun Kothari]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The court dismissed the plaintiff's application seeking attachment of the defendants' assets and bank accounts over alleged GST fraud and unpaid dues of Rs. 77,05,223. It held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that the defendants intended to dispose of assets to frustrate a potential decree. The GST proceedings against the defendants remain pending.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [Team Computers Private Limited VS Union of India & Ors]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The Supreme Court stayed the department's order demanding repayment of refunded ITC, noting the non-functional GST Appellate Tribunal. It sought an explanation from authorities regarding the tribunal's delay. The High Court had dismissed the writ, citing alternative remedies under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
MADRAS HIGH COURT[ Surya Motors, Represented By Its Partner, Mahaveer Purmia Vs The Assistant Commissione]r ]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The court set aside the assessment order for AY 2019-20 due to improper service of notices uploaded on the GST portal without proper communication. It remanded the matter for reconsideration upon payment of 10% of the disputed tax.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [SMT Angoori Devi Educational and Cultural Society (Regd.) VS Union of India and 4 Others ]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The court quashed the GST demand of Rs. 5.52 crore raised by Greater NOIDA Authority, terming it non-speaking and contrary to exemption notifications and rulings. It directed reassessment through a detailed speaking order and permitted pending premium payment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
GAUHATI HIGH COURT [High Tech Ecogreen Contractors LLP (Formerly Hitech Construction) Vs The Joint Director and 2 Ors. The Additional Commissioner CGST and Central Excise]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The court admitted the writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 36(4) of the CGST\/AGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that the rule violates the CGST Act and cannot be addressed by the Appellate Tribunal. The court noted the legal question\u2019s significance and scheduled a hearing for further consideration.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
National Pension System Trust, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi<\/h3><\/a>\n
National Pension System Trust, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
Ifci Tower, New Delhi, Delhi<\/h3><\/a>\n
Ifci Tower, New Delhi, Delhi<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
GAUHATI HIGH COURT [High Tech Ecogreen Contractors LLP (Formerly Hitech Construction) Vs The Joint Director and 2 Ors. The Additional Commissioner CGST and Central Excise]<\/h3><\/a>\n
In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Guwahati, as well as the order dated 12.02.2024, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Guwahati, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 31.03.2023 has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of Rule 36(4) of the CGST\/AGST Rules, 2017 claiming it violative of the provisions of the CGST and AGST Act.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
BOMBAY HIGH COURT [General Motors India Private Limited Vs State of Maharashtra, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Pune, Authority For Advance Ruling Mumbai ]<\/h3><\/a>\n
Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT [Pragati Bio & Renewable Energy Vs Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Ranchi]<\/h3><\/a>\n
commanding upon the respondents to restore the GST Registration of the petitioner in order to enable the petitioner to continue to do its business under the GST Registration No.20CWCPB9977P1ZO (as contained in Annexure-2);<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Sky Associates Vs State of U.P. and Another ]<\/h3><\/a>\n
This writ petition is directed against order dated 15.3.2024 passed by the respondents whereby GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
BOMBAY HIGH COURT [Finorion Pharma India Private Limited VS State of Maharashtra]<\/h3><\/a>\n
This is yet another case where the Petitioner is attempting to bypass the practice of exhausting alternate remedies and taking chances with the Court processes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
BOMBAY HIGH COURT [Alkem Laboratories Limited VS Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The challenge in both these petitions is to the orders-in-original dated 18th December 2023 and 26th December 2023 made by the first Respondent and notification No. 09 of 2023-Central Tax dated 31st March 2023 issued by the third Respondent purporting to extend the limitation for passing the final order in respect of the concerned assessment year, i.e. A.Y. 2017-18.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
BOMBAY HIGH COURT [Apex Iron (India) Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Maharashtra]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a GST order citing non-exhaustion of the appellate remedy. It found the allegations of natural justice violations vague and directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, leaving all contentions open for adjudication.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
MADRAS HIGH COURT [Coach Builders, Rep By Its Authorized Signatory Prasanna Venkatesh VS The State Tax Officer Erode ]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The petitioner herein is TVR Coach Builders in Karur District, a leading provider of comprehensive contracting and building services, specializes in delivering high-quality solutions that cater to Builders & Developers projects. The business operates as a proprietorship and is registered with GSTIN: 33AAEPR0924N1ZL. The Petitioner undertook several prominent government projects at Bangalore, Madurai and Coimbatore. That being the case, the Company has now ceased to exist.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
BOMBAY HIGH COURT Apex Iron (India) Pvt. Ltd.B VS State of Maharashtra] <\/h3><\/a>\n
The learned counsel for the Petitioner had already made it clear on 8 October 2024 that the Petitioner would not press for any relief in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of this petition. Accordingly, Mr. Rastogi has made no submissions on prayer clauses (a) and (b) and the reliefs in those prayers are therefore rejected.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others ]<\/h3><\/a>\n
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to make payment of GST @ 18%.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
BOMBAY HIGH COURT [Pepperfry Private Limited Vs Union of India]. <\/h3><\/a>\n
It is pointed out that the disposal of the petition was based on the orders made by us in Writ Petition No. 4500 of 2024 [2024] However, it is now pointed out to us that though this petitioner instituted Writ Petition No. 4500 of 2024, the subject matter of the said petition was different.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
BOMBAY HIGH COURT [ Surinderpal Chamanlal Aggarwal Huf (Metals and General Trading Co.) Vs State of Maharashtra, Commissioner of State Tax]<\/h3><\/a>\n
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
BOMBAY HIGH COURT [Trade Concepts Corporation Vs State of Maharashtra ]<\/h3><\/a>\n
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both these petitions can be disposed of by common order since the issue of law and fact are substantially similar. He points out that two petitions were filed because they pertain to two different financial years.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
BOMBAY HIGH COURT [Zoomcar India Private Limited VS The State of Maharashtra]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The High Court declined to entertain the petition against GST assessment orders, directing the petitioner to exhaust the statutory appellate remedy. It granted liberty to file an appeal within four weeks without limitation concerns, noting no prima facie violation of natural justice or contradictory precedents.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Prakash Iron Store, Hardoi Thru. Proprietor VS State of U.P. Thru. Prin]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The High Court quashed a demand order under Section 74 of the GST Act and the appellate order, citing non-compliance with Section 75(4), which mandates an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing adverse orders. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with due process.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT [Marbaniang Projects Private Limited VS Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India), The Chief Manager]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The petitioner challenged the respondent bank's action of adjusting Escrow Account funds meant for statutory liabilities, including GST, against loan repayments. This breach of the Escrow Agreement led to cascading financial issues, including GST non-compliance and NPA classification of the petitioner company. The court held the bank liable for violating Escrow Agreement terms, directing corrective action for GST compliance while acknowledging procedural gaps.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT [MS Windals Precision Pvt. Ltd. VS The Assistant Commissioner State Tax and Another ]<\/h3><\/a>\n
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Proper Officer under Section 130 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as \u201cAct of 2017\u201d), whereby the vehicles and the goods thereon were confiscated by the Proper Officer, who imposed penalty to the tune of Rs. 6,49,742\/- upon the petitioner.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Rizvi Medical Agency Thru. Proprietor Mohd. Ashraf Husain VS State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration Lko]<\/h3><\/a>\n
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act as well as the order dated 25.09.2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as being beyond limitation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT [ITI Ltd. .....Appellant Vs The Union of India, GST Council New Delhi, Central Board of Indirect Taxes]<\/h3><\/a>\n
1. This matter concerning the demand for excess availed Inputs Tax Credit for the month of November, 2017-2018 in terms of Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and Meghalaya Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST), is before us today for hearing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT [Anand Kumar Hirawat Vs The Senior Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes]<\/h3><\/a>\n
1. The petitioner operates a sole proprietorship business under the name M\/s Anand Impez, situated at 21, 3rd Floor, Synagogue Street, Burrabazar, Kolkata- 700001. The petitioner is a Registered Taxable Person (RTP) under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, holding GSTIN 19AAQPH8629C12E.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
PATNA HIGH COURT [Singodwala Warehousing and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Bihar The Joint Commissioner of State Tax]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The petitioner, an assessee under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short \u2018BGST Act\u2019), is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration, for reason of his business being found non-existent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT [Snehasish Paul . VS Assistant Commissioner of State Tax]<\/h3><\/a>\n
1. The Petitioners in the present writ petition have approached this Hon\u2019ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking the quashing and setting aside of the order passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as \u201cCGST Act\u201d) and the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as \u201cWBGST Act\u201d) for the financial year 2021\u20132022. The impugned order was passed by the Learned Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Officer, Dakshin Dinajpur, being Respondent No. 1 herein.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT [Barminco Indian VS Deputy Commissioner]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The petitioner challenged an interest recovery order under Section 75(12) of the UP GST Act, citing non-consideration of their reply. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after considering the petitioner's submission.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
Corrigendum Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, Guwahati, Assam<\/h3><\/a>\n
Corrigendum Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, Guwahati, Assam<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
District Health & Family Welfare Society, Fatehabad, Haryana<\/h3><\/a>\n
District Health & Family Welfare Society, Fatehabad, Haryana<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
University of Calcutta, Kolkata,West Bengal<\/h3><\/a>\n
University of Calcutta, Kolkata,West Bengal<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Jeet Security and HR Services Vs State of U.P. and Another ]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The petitioner challenged an interest recovery order under Section 75(12) of the UP GST Act, citing non-consideration of their reply. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after considering the petitioner's submission.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Kashi Vishwanath MFG and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another] <\/h3><\/a>\n
The petitioner challenged a GST demand order of Rs. 73,87,225.92, citing procedural lapses and failure to consider key submissions. The court granted conditional relief, directing rehearing upon depositing 50% of the demand within four weeks.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT [Diamond Timber Industries Vs Superintendent of CGST]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The court stayed the CGST\/WBGST order under Section 73(9) based on a prima facie case, considering the retrospective applicability of Section 16(5) for delayed input tax credit claims, pending further hearing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Limited Vs Joint Commissioner Corporate Circle]<\/h3><\/a>\n
The court quashed the assessment order under Section 73 of the GST Act, holding it violated principles of natural justice as no opportunity for a personal hearing was granted despite the petitioner\u2019s specific request.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
ORISSA HIGH COURT City Ply and Hardware Vs Union of India and Others <\/h3><\/a>\n
The petitioner challenged a GST order disallowing Input Tax Credit (ITC) for delayed GSTR-3B filing. The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to apply for rectification under Section 148 of the CGST Act within the permitted timeframe.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
Airports Authority Of India, New Delhi, Delhi<\/h3><\/a>\n
Airports Authority Of India, New Delhi, Delhi<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
University of Delhi, Delhi, New Delhi<\/h3><\/a>\n
University of Delhi, Delhi, New Delhi<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
Uranium Corporation Of India Limited, East Singhbhum, Jharkhand<\/h3><\/a>\n
Uranium Corporation Of India Limited, East Singhbhum, Jharkhand<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited, Udaipur, Rajasthan<\/h3><\/a>\n
Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited, Udaipur, Rajasthan<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd, Raipur, Chhattisgarh<\/h3><\/a>\n
Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd, Raipur, Chhattisgarh<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
District Health & Family Welfare Society, Kurukshetra, Haryana<\/h3><\/a>\n
District Health & Family Welfare Society, Kurukshetra, Haryana<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
Maharashtra State Security Corporation, Mumbai, Maharashtra<\/h3><\/a>\n
Maharashtra State Security Corporation, Mumbai, Maharashtra<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
Howrah Municipal Corporation, Howrah, West Bengal<\/h3><\/a>\n
Howrah Municipal Corporation, Howrah, West Bengal<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
District Health & Family Welfare Society, Sirsa, Haryana<\/h3><\/a>\n
District Health & Family Welfare Society, Sirsa, Haryana<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Gandhinagar, Gujarat<\/h3><\/a>\n
Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Gandhinagar, Gujarat<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
M.P. Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh<\/h3><\/a>\n
M.P. Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Gandhinagar, Gujarat<\/h3><\/a>\n
Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Gandhinagar, Gujarat<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
Sports Authority of India, Lodhi Road, New Delhi<\/h3><\/a>\n
Sports Authority of India, Lodhi Road, New Delhi<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
The Employees Provident Fund Organization, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh<\/h3><\/a>\n
The Employees Provident Fund Organization, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>
H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh<\/h3><\/a>\n
H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>